Thank you for your fast response to my questions.
I got tons of answers from my previous questions and it really surprised me.
jericopartosa@yahoo.com
2007-10-08 02:02:36 · 10 answers · asked by Buknoy 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Quotations
Your quote most likely ends with a typo, but, in life I have found that it is, in fact, mostly mean-spirited people who embrace this philosophy. So, no, I don't believe the "end justifies the means" when people act ruthlessly to accomplish their goals.
2007-10-08 02:28:19 · answer #1 · answered by Beach Saint 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually this is a self serving term, to justify an act of injustice for the sake of justice. (I hope you caught the contradiction there?) In other words it is legal for interrogators to lie to a suspect to get a confession, even if doing so may compromise the rights of the individual. Providing those rights have been waived, i.e. the waiving of Miranda in criminal interrogations. This does not by any means make the action legal, moral or ethical. But it does give the lawyers legal standing and argument later should the action be questioned. I think it's just another of the many ends that somehow have been twisted into needing some kind of means to be justified.
2007-10-08 02:29:21 · answer #2 · answered by Tom H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the correct saying is by Immanuel Kant, and then ends should always justify the means, not that they necessarily do. The ends are the final goal of anything that you would like to reach and the means are the methods and techniques you used to get to the final goal.
Ends should always justify the means. They do not necessarily, but if they do not then you are aiming for the ends for the wrong reason. Along those lines, people should never be merely a means to an end, as you are just using the people in that case to get the desired outcome, which is also wrong according to Kant.
I don't know if I actually answered your question here, but I tried to mix in as much of Kant as I can remember.
2007-10-08 02:09:11 · answer #3 · answered by Cinoi1551 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. This is a saying used by people to justify doing morally wrong things.
2016-05-18 22:58:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do to some extent; you shouldn't judge - for instance politicians - by moral.
The mean must be fit to te end. Nonetheless
"When statesmen forsake their own private consciences for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos."
2007-10-08 02:27:20 · answer #5 · answered by mand 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This statement is a lazy justification for doing any underhanded deed necessary to obtain a given outcome. Not very honorable,eh? :-)=
2007-10-08 02:06:13 · answer #6 · answered by Jcontrols 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Justify does not have wait to the end.
2007-10-08 02:06:46 · answer #7 · answered by James1982 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do in some situations, but it has to be judged on a case by case basis. It's not something you can agree with in all situations.
2007-10-08 02:06:30 · answer #8 · answered by ophirhodji 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Many times you don't know why things happen till they are over.
2007-10-08 02:11:36 · answer #9 · answered by Tino 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not Always.
So i should commit a crime if it helps somone out?
2007-10-08 02:06:26 · answer #10 · answered by Fuzzybutt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋