Do you disagree with this statement?? Why??

Question

the ends always justify the means

Answer 1

First, a categorical absolute ("ALWAYS") is rarely correct.

Second, if the ends are humanitarian but the means include violence, rape, torture, assassination, and the like, you had to step away from humanitarianism to get to your goal, which then leaves you with the question of whether your goal was in fact sincere.

The means SOMETIMES justify the end. For instance, working long hard hours to further your career can often be justified. Working long hours to put your kids through school can be justified.

When you have to become exactly what you don't want to become in order to reach your goals, you have crossed the line into that place where the end no longer justifies the means. Which is why I grieve that the USA has admitted to using torture techniques to stem the tide of terrorism. I think that is a perfectly relevant case where the ideals of the USA and the idea of inalienable rights simply cannot be reconciled with torture of prisoners.

Answer 2

I disagree with this statement for the most part - the means are usually all we have. The 'ends' is usually never attained, but if it is, we probably had to give up happiness, security, rights, etc. (whatever it was that was bad), then generally it's not worth it to have whatever the goal was.

For instance, a parent putting a girl through years of ballet, that she absolutely hates, and causes her physical pain, and erases her social life. They do this, because in their minds once she's a world-class ballerina it will have been worth all the suffering. However, why did they want her to be this world-class ballerina? Perhaps so that she could have a good life, have pride in herself, and be famous with many admirers... however she's spent her entire childhood unhappy, unsatisfied, and with no friends. When she's a world-class ballerina she won't be happy, she won't take pride in it, and she won't care about her admirers... Why was it better to have a horrible present for a dreamed-of good future that by logic could never materilise?

In a more real example, like some others have alluded to, torturing suspects to get information, to prevent suffering... you've created suffering to prevent suffering - therefore, you have actually created a negative. Even if you don't care about a 'guilty' suspect, what if the suspect is innocent? There is no way to prove a negative (prove that you don't know something) so torture has no way out - you'll only find out after the fact. Therefore, you're torturing a potentially innocent person to potentially save innocent people... it seems a ridiculous trade off. Even if you do save some innocent people, you have undermined your own values, eroding that which you're trying to save. It is self-destructive in the end (perhaps not immediately, but eventually). Personally I'd rather live in a country under a greater threat of terror, than a safer country where innocent (until proven guilty, everyone IS innocent by our own laws) people can be tortured 'for the greater good'.

I think the statement is intended to describe a situation in an ideal world, where the ends is always a noble one, and the means is always absolutely necessary and a last resort (for instance the means NOT being gratuitous violence, but rather killing a man to stop him from bombing a bus). However, we do not live in a perfect world, where people have altruistic motives and the ability to know certainties - without certainties there can be no 'sure ends' to justify questionable means.

When you become that which you despise, in order to eliminate the despised object... you cannot possibly win - you have in fact perpetuated a cycle that means you will have to be destroyed as well.

As the quote goes, if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss gazes back.

Answer 3

I disagree. Why? well lets see..The U.S.A. was once a large cotton producer; achieved from the blistered bleeding hands and the broken bodies and spirits of slaves- does the end justify the means here? Hitler ordered the roundup and massacre of 6+million Jews Goal: Purify Aryan race.does the ends justify the means here? It is said that how we 'soften prisoners up' even including torture is justified in order to get good intel, although experts in this field say torture doesn't work....We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki;how could such an end be justified by means such as these? on and on it goes....We don't want tourists to see the homeless so we push them out of town rout them from their cardboard boxes without a thought to what becomes of them, does the end goal of a city without homelessness justify the means used to remove them? Ethical dilemmas, moral dilemmas, ah the stuff life is made of...

Answer 4

The quotation you are thinking of is "In the interests of the state, the ends justify the means" (or it may be 'end justifies the means')
The important bit is "in the interests of the state", and it is written from the viewpoint of someone who sees themself in the positon of embodying the state.
All countries obey this rule. That is the reason we have 'mutually assured destruction' as a defence strategy.

Answer 5

The Prince, Machiavelli huh?. No this is not right. example: If the "final solution" for hitler justified the means for killing over 4 million jews, gypsies, and unwanted ppl, then whoever believes the end always jusified the means is insane.

Answer 6

Yes I do.

Suppose you have money in your pocket and I know it.
Would it be OK for me to shoot you to get it?
I think you would not believe that my means were justified.
Perhaps I could ask for it. That would be reasonable.

Think of this one.
Suppose I just wanted to know if you had money in your pocket and I killed you so you wouldn't stop me looking?
If you believe that the end justifies the mean you could not object ( albeit posthumously) under any grounds.

Tough luck!