Does the end justify the means?
This is an old question, but one which I have not heard discussed anywhere lately. One way to look at it is to say that it is simply a matter of calculation. If (ends – means) > 0 then the means is justified.
The objection to this reasoning is the law of unintended consequences. Corrupt ends have a way of transforming noble ends. For example, the discussion on the use of torture has been all about whether torture achieves its immediate objectives. Suppose for the moment that it did. Would that justify it? What if use of torture turns us into monsters, leading to policies that we would not otherwise undertake? Would that not be a factor?
A simpler and more mundane example is one I read about in the book Freakonomics. A child care center had a problem with mothers who arrived late to pick up their children. They imposed a fine. The result? Greater tardiness. The imposition of the fine transformed what had been a source of guilt into a fee paid to the agency.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
14 Answers
Sometimes it does, sometimes not.
I suspect that it depends on how repulsive the means are and how beneficial the end is.
If torture of one or a few individuals would have given us warning of 9/11, so that thousands of civilians did not die, might that not be an acceptable justification of repulsive means to achieve a noble end?
^ but then the public would never know how real and serious the threat is that they are faced with.
As a general rule, no. I agree with your assessment that the “the end” is rarely actually the only consequence, and that the harmful (though subtle) repercussions of violating moral principles have to be taken into account.
But then there are those troublesome hypotheticals that test the limits of morality: would you knowingly cause the death of one innocent person in order to save the lives of ten? Causing the death of an innocent is morally repugnant (and would no doubt exact a toll of suffering), but is the alternative more acceptable?
There are many real world examples of this kind of situation. The question of the legitimacy of killing animals in the development of treatments for human disease is one variation. Many would unhesitatingly approve of this, while others would have great qualms.
So my answer would have to be that it’s unwise to be blindly guided by maxims in matters of morallity.
Spock’s dying words,
“The needs of the many,
outweigh the needs of the few,
or the one.”
sniff
Gawds bless Spock! I think I’m a better for the world human being after watching Star Trek and Kung Fu and The Twilight Zone episodes. I live by a loose motto of doing the most and best for myself while doing the least amount of harm to others and it seems to work out well.
Too many sayings – you have to crack an egg to make an omlet. You have to have a darkness….for the dawn to come. Nothing worth having comes easy.
What is the goal? In this wikipedia article Jeremy Bentham is quoted as saying: “Happiness”.... as the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain.”
Who is the judge? Do we have a duty to examine the possible consequences of all our actions?
If the end justifies the means, does that justify pre-emptive murder? We’re talking about situational ethics here.
Well no, it doesn’t. You may get away with it, in the short term, but that does not make it right. But there is a saying that has much truth, “Needs must when the Devil drives.” It is possible to imagine circumstances which force one to actions that are actually bad and may be even wicked, but the perceived necessity does not make the actions moral.
Might I add something? Somebody once said something about a good seaman never being caught on a lee shore in a storm. As a metaphor for moral behaviour it could not be bettered.
NO!
Do we kill a million people to see if a vaccine will work for a billion people? NO.
Do you want to be one of those million or your kid or your mom?
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
