The ends justify the means. Did Thomas More believe in this?

Answer 1

I doubt it. The quote was made by Machiavelli, who believed in lies and deceit as a means to reach a goal. He said that rulers should do whatever is necessary to gain and hold power.

More, on the other hand was almost the opposite, believing in truthfulness and morality. In his 'Utopia' he describes a world where all men are free and equal and the rulers are elected democratically.

Answer 2

that depends. First of all, right and wrong arent always set in stone. There are always exceptions. If you lie to save another life, thats exceptable, since the murderer has no right to know the information. but on the other hand, lying to get something you want, when you are not unfairly hurting anyone, thats your choice. For ends to ever justify means, the end result should make thing better for everyone. Ex. sending out junk mail, but its an advertisement for life insurance. the intent was to help someone, but the action was gonna annoy some people, but several people were now going to have life insurance. just remember to think for yourself. And remember power doesnt give people extra rights.

Answer 3

I don't think he would ever have ADVOCATED anything expressed quite that way. Whether, in the name of principle, he ever actually PRACTICED it, is something to be carefully sorted out.

First, I hate to call into question a fine play like "A Man for All Seasons". And I do not question More's FINAL stand, remaining true to his convictions, even against his king and at the cost of his own life.

But the man may be admirable in many respects (esp. at the end) without having been flawless.

Without necessarily questioning More's devoutness, it is clear that he went as far as he thought necessary in fighting what he believed were dangerous heresies of his days (esp. "Lutheranism", used for any kind of Protestant belief). In particular, he felt that William Tyndale was a great heretic and so an enormous threat to the spiritual well-being of the people of England. (Tyndale was the first to translate the Bible from the original languages into modern English [in the 1520s-30s]. His translation was so key, that a large percentage of it was adopted by other early versions without change, esp. the Geneva Bible and King James Version.)

The following book by Brian Moynihan argues that More was the one responsible for the eventual capture of Tyndale, and that he had to use deceit and betrayal in this effort. From More's perspective that may have been justified by the grave necessity he perceived.

If that's really how it happened, is More saying "The ends justify the means" ? Not necessarily, though it takes things a bit further in that direction than some might like.

*God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible---A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal* by Brian Moynahan (St Martin's Press, 2003)


There are others who have argued that More was, at an earlier stage, willing to go along with things he was less than sure of, in support of the king. Those who believe that he 'knew or should have known' that his account of Richard III ("The History of King Richard III "), was unfair in its suggestion of Richard's involvement in the death of the two princes (his nephews). He wrote as he did, in that case, out of loyalty to the Tudors (since if Richard didn't do it, Henry VII's involvement and/or right to the throne, might have been called into question). (This is the viewpoint of some who think Richard was unjustly accused. I believe Josephine Tey's book *The Daughter of Time* [a popularize presentation of the view of Clements Markham] suggests More didn't actually write this history [but accepted and handed it on?] though few now accept this conjecture. )

Answer 4

I have just finished reading a book about the life of Sir Thomas More. He believed in saying what he thought was right, no matter what.
.