A major focus of disagreement in political thought concerns Macchiavelli's statement that the ends justify the means. I seek to solve this issue. People are responsible for what they do; and that means both the ends and the means. Wrongful ends or wrongful means become judgeable. Doing wrong things, or doing things for wrong purposes, result in wrong things done. Which means that both the ends and the means matter. Hitler and Stalin were both horrendous despots whose means were equally abhorrent. However Hitler is generally hated more than is Stalin, because his ends – killing the Jews and enslaving everyone else – were worse than Stalin's ends – creating a worker's utopia. This shows that ends matter. However so do the means. Stalin and Khruschev both had the same ends; but their means differed greatly. Khruschev is seen as a much better person than Stalin, because his means were much more humane. Do the ends justify the means? No. Both the ends and the means are part of one's behavior, and one will be judged on both. It is important to have the right goal, and it is important to behave rightfully in pursuit of that right goal. Both the ends and the means matter, and both need to be the best that they can be.
There is no "end". Even when an "end" is reached, then another is found. Which make history a long succession of means without any end. I would say that then no, the means doesn't justify the end. However it's simplier to say than to do. However on a practical way, I would be more cautious : for instance, I already lied to someone vulnerable because it was the only way to preserve him. I consider that lying is bad, but on that case, it was the lesser evil.
There is only one possibility of EVER justifying ANY means of any kind - and that is the ends. If have NO reason to move, I don't move. I may use the means of moving to the end of reducing boredom. But, there was still and end without which the means would not be employed. I just don't accept that a means is ever employed without there being an end to justify it. Surely the wording of the question is the real problem. The real question is whether the means selected were justified. If my end is to get rich there are many means I could employ. Not all of them are justified. But, some of them very definitely ARE justified. In our system, I could use the means of taking out a loan and working to successfully start a new business. That is an encouraged means, certainly justifiable, even though it puts other people's money at risk. There are even cases where the ends may justify means that are in themselves illegal. There is the trolley problem where seemingly heinous means might possibly be justified by ends. I just believe the question is poorly worded. Maybe "only the ends can justify the means".
It depends on the situation. If you could save 1000 lives by killing 500 innocent lives would that be justifiable? It would be to the 1000 that lived but not to the 500 that died.
The answer has to come in the framework of society as a whole judging the actor - not in the personal opinion of one of those involved.
RE: Do Ends Justify The Means? ⁜→ WillReadmore, et al, There is a justification that must be satisfied. In the scenario where 1000 lives are saved • and • 500 are sacrificed → one must justify the reasoning that all lives are equal. (COMMENT) In reality, society knows that all lives are not equal (as much as we would want to thinks so). Example: Is an Albert Einstein = to a Jeffrey Dahmer? Similarly, all properties cannot be considered equal. So, in terms of the specific example (save 1000 Lives by sacrificing 500 Lives) becomes a moral problem. Once you politicize it, we start estimating values on humans individually: Example: Do I have a greater value than you? Just One thought from the lurker... Most Respectfully, R
I don't like the concept of weighing lives like that. Would our society save the Imperial Wizzard of the KKK or a slave? But, that is about the methods of justification, which isn't addressed by what I pointed out.
Khruschev restarted the persecution against Christians. He was also the one who implemented the Holodymir in Ukraine that killed millions - so it probably has nothing to do with him being more humane, and more to do with the length of time he served. It was 6 years, while Stalin served 30 years.
Does the end justify the means? Well it depends on what the means are. If the means used are immoral and unethical, then then there is no justification. How can a productive end come from sinful means? Besides that, how can someone who has no moral qualms, be the determining factor in what would be a good and productive end result? I'm only thinking in terms of politics and ideologues here.
Agreed, though tossing sin into the mix doesn't make things clearer, I think. Also, it's usually not acceptable if the means are more costly than the end can cover.
Most of Hitler's victims were the Slavs, yet Hitler is considered evil because he killed the Jews. This shows that it's not the evil that one does, but rather how much it's being publicized. I could say the same about the inquisition in Spain. It's always being mentioned, especially in the English history books, yet in Britain the persecution against Catholics was so severe that within 100 years they all converted - and yet the Turks weren't able to manage it in the Balkans in 300 years. Stalin did open the Churches during WWII, and yet when Khrushev came into office he immediately closed them and restarted the persecution against Christians. In Crimea, Stalin shipped 60 thousand Greeks to the Urals because they refused to communize. Yet he didn't kill them. He also shipped the Tatars from Crimea to the Urals during the war because they were a threat, yet he didn't kill them either. In Ukraine though when Khruschev was in charge, instead of shipping part of the grain to Kazachstan to help them out during the crop failure, he shipped all the grain and let millions of Ukrainians starve to death because they refused to communize. Yesterday I read that the animal who killed the royal family gave the gun he used to Khruschev as a gift. He even bragged to Khruschev that he didn't want to waste his ammunition so they began bayonetting the royal martyrs. If Stalin was so evil, why didn't he brag about it to him and give him the gun as a gift, but instead he bragged about it to Khruschev? I agree!
