Does the End justify the Means or does it not. This is a question that has been with humanity as far long as humanity has existed.
I used to think that the End does and must justify the Means. Think about if after all, if the end result does a whole lot of good for a lot of people, then what is wrong if a few have to suffer?
This was the reasoning I held for a long time, but then, when I started thinking along the lines of morals, integrity I came across a dilemma. The dilemma is this: Say you use dubious means to achieve a highly honorable goal. Now, since you used dubious means, aren’t you morally unworthy of that goal? What if the means you used are contradictory of the goal that you wish to achieve?
Also, how do you define which is an honorable goal, and more importantly where do you draw the line on the means that you use to achieve the goal?
The above question along with the following quote which I came across
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster” by Friedrich Nietzsche begs the question of people who claim that the end does justify the means.
Scores and scores of cops, soldiers, and intelligence agents around the world have to make the choice everyday in their line of duty on end vs. means debate.
Now let’s take the other side of the debate that the End does not justify the Means. Of what use would a goal be, if it were not achieved? It would be another failure and would only lead to disillusionment for all those involved with the goal/idea. What use would an idea be, if it were to never see the light of the day and was destroyed by a unscrupulous few?
Of course one may argue that one retains their integrity, morality. That the people involved do not behave in a contradictory manner from their held conventions and thus they are “whole” in the intellectual sense. But this may be labeled, by some, as an excuse for them not being strong enough to stomach what is necessary to be done to achieve their goal/idea. After all many a country’s independence was won through violent means.
So, where does this leave us?
Does the End justify the Means or not? Well, that is a choice that every individual has to make their own choice on this.
I have made my choice and that is that the End does not justify the Means.
I leave you with a quote from the nadirs of my mind:
“A person who truly believes that the End justifies the Means will always claim that the End does not justify the Means.”
4 comments:
the whole thing, as you have mentioned, is a debate happening for ages. like whether you are pro-robinhood or anti robin. whether he should be seen as a robber or a hero. whether you rob rich peter to pay poor paul.. (to twist the saying to our convinience...eurgh!!! dont they have a spellcheck feature here... )is justifiable. Assuming the end is intended for good purposes, I think the whole thing depends on how destructive the means are!!white lies are accommodative, murder is not etc etc.. And of course it is a question of choices whether to have futile goals or fulfilled goals(whatever the means be). I always like that statement "choosing between what is right and what is easy..."(Source HP).
whats good and whats bad, whats the right thing and whats the wrong thing, the end and the means... really who defines all this.
An extreme version of the end justifies the means statement is nothing but survival. And if survival (nit just physical but integrity and reason too) is indeed the prize for the fight, then the end does justify the means.
Good post Hari, when i read it, i can clearly understand that you are preparing yourself to become an "intelligent manager".
First of all, "END Versus MEANS", some people argue that the end does not justify the MEAN (based on their conscience), while others argue that the END is justified irrespective of the MEAN(Result-minded people).
As Messenger to the lost soul puts it"There is really no right or wrong". SO this argument is endless, it all depends on the person, and the circumstances involving it.
As people say "One man's food is another man's poison", the same serves true for this argument. What is right for me is wrong for you, and vice versa. So, in that context, you can justiy any END or MEAN.
1 thing i always use whenevr it comes 2 questions relating to ethics is - try putting the thing onto yourself... changes a lot f ur answers. eg if i hav 2 kill 1 person to save a thousand people dying f hunger i would probably kil. sounds logical... right?
But if that 1 person is my husband(sm1 i love the most)my answer changes to an obvious NO WAY. and then the logic for that follows too- if i help these starving ppl today tmrw they ll b in the same condition again,or thr ll b thousand more 2 help,then what - kil sm1 again? nature finds its own way everytime with everything , y b an active and negative agent?
Post a Comment