To what extent do means justify ends?

~Depends if one gets caught.

The phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Comes to mind, but I don’t know why.

Yes it is time to update that saying. The ends don’t justify the means, and the means don’t justify the ends. Nothing justifies anything else.

To whatever extent is required. It’s a given.

How can you have means without intended ends? Could you give an example?

The best reasoning in this regard I found from the philosopher Sartre. He asked how you distinguish means from ends. It all comes in the same package. The problem with saying that ends justify means is that unpleasant means have a way of corrupting ends.

No single answer. Situational to the extreme.

Thanks for the clarifying questions, @LostInParadise. I’m thinking this question probably wasn’t as well thought out as I thought it was. Maybe there isn’t much “meat” to this question. But some examples that were in my head when asking it:

- I’ve seen arguments that some politicians favor following the correct “process” even to the detriment of immediate values or immediate outcomes—that when other political actors stop “playing by the rules,” they stick with the old process instead of trying to rethink their approach, because (so the argument goes) they are operating under the assumption that abiding by the right process makes them right in their actions regardless the outcome. (I’m just trying to repeat the argument here for an example, not give an opinion of it).

- People protesting the wearing of masks because it’s a “means” that infringes on their freedoms, regardless the outcome of people not wearing masks.

- I was in a position where I was supposed to follow the rules and practices of an education program because that’s how the program “worked,” despite those rules and practices not seeming to bring about the stated end goal (student learning and achievement).

I realize I’m oversimplifying those situations to explain them concisely, but hopefully that makes sense?

To some extent, I was also thinking political ”-isms” may be an example of this as well—when someone has an ”-ism” they agree with, in a way they have subscribed to the idea that certain means are the “good” ones or the “preferred” ones—and often compare the “means” of different proposals against those promoted by the ”-ism” as a measure of their worth, or as a shortcut to assess the proposals’ worth.