how do you define the saying "The End justify the Means"?

Answer 1

its consequentialist ethics: the morality of an action is determined by the outcomes it produces (or is most likely to produce). The opposite is deontological ethics: the morality of an action is determined by whether or not it adheres to preset rules (such as whether the action violates another's rights or goes against the rules of god, etc.)

Personally I think the end does justify the means. What is the point in following rules if they make the world a worse place? If you have a choice between an action which will likely make the world a better place but break a rule or an action that will likely make the world a worse place but adheres to the rules, shouldn't you choose to break the rule? Immanuel Kant (probably the most famous deontological theorist) was famous for saying that it was ALWAYS wrong to lie, even if by doing so you could save a person's life.

The problem with this (and all deontological views) is that they either have to say that the rules are absolute, even if they make things worse, or that by adhering to the rules things will be better than by not adhering to them. If the latter course is taken, its really a consequentialist view. If the former, then we would have to ask ourselves what the point of following certain guidelines is if they make things worse.

I think the main reason why ethics is so confusing to people is that we invent general rules to live by, but then mistakenly take these invented rules as having a moral value in themselves instead of in the positive results they should foster. How many ethical dilemmas could be resolved if we recognized that when a moral rule we have created is leading to negative consequences, changing that rule is the right thing to do?

Answer 2

What this supports is taking any action whatsoever to reach a certain goal. If the goal is sufficiently important it can be said that the means taken were justified in order to reach the goal (end). it is, however, not an acceptable philosophy as it sanctions bad conduct which is ignored to achieve a goal and this is not right.

Answer 3

"Il Fine giustifica i Mezzi" is the original text in Italian.
It comes from Niccolo' Machiavelli, a polititian and writer in the Renaissance (1469-1527). He wrote in particular "Il Principe", where he describes the ideal behaviour that a Prince should stick to in order to retain power. Lets remember that at the time, political unrest was extreme in Florence, where Machiavelli was based in, so his point was mostly that whatever mean one should employ is good to obtain success.

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

This was from Machiavelli's "The Prince" I believe.
It is a famous writing from the Renaissance about the things one will do to get and maintain power and the importance of a final outcome on power.
Machiavelli was not condoning this, just showing what sort of things rulers did.

Answer 5

Its pretty plain what it means. An ending that you agree with is worth whatever methods you used to achieve it. Its normally used in situational ethics to justify scummy behavior.

Answer 6

It means that as long as you get what you want in the end, it doesn't matter what you did to get it.

Obviously in REALITY, the ends don't always justify the means.

Answer 7

Whatever you have to do to get what you want is ok. Not the most moral adage in most cases.

Answer 8

getting the solution having the correct way of achieving it.

Answer 9

do whatever it takes to reach your goal.