The ends justify the means
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since July 2006. (help, talk) |
"The ends justify the means" is a phrase encompassing two beliefs:
- Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes.
- Actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome.
Conversely, people who believe that the consequences of an immoral action are greater than those of the expected outcome will often say that the ends do not justify the means.
Contents |
[edit] Morally wrong actions are sometimes considered necessary to achieve morally right outcomes
The implication is that good ends justify questionable means.
[edit] Theories supporting this view
A commonly held opinion is that persons are willing to commit small moral transgressions in the service of a greater good; such a view is implicit in consequentialist moral theories such as utilitarianism. It is the philosophy that it is acceptable or necessary to use illegal, immoral, or unethical means to achieve a beneficial result, or "the greater good". The theory is subsequently used to support the position that any action in the service of an important enough cause is justified. This view is often attributed to many radical political ideologies, and historical atrocities committed by such groups are said to be caused by 'moral blindness' in which an ultimate goal is used to overrule moral considerations.
[edit] A possible example of trying to justify a good end by bad means
In some applications at least, this argument is related to the question of serving the greater good. This implies the means is detrimental to an individual or a small (i.e., minority) group but appears to benefit the majority or the vaguely defined society. For example, faced with a bomb hidden in a metropolitan area, it could be considered morally justifiable to torture the person who knows where it is (assuming that under torture he would truthfully reveal information which saved the citizens). See Controversy over Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. Given the belief that torture is wrong, one could consider it moral to commit that wrong in the interests of saving thousands of lives. As is often, but certainly not always, the case with this dilemma, this is a Lesser of two evils principle situation.
[edit] Further analysis of the effects of torture
Utilitarian use of the ends justify the means must consider the ends to include all outcomes from the means, not just the goal outcomes. In reality innocent suspects may be tortured due to faulty intelligence. In the above dilemma perfect intelligence on this question is assumed. The ends would include one or more definitely tortured suspects, the possible saving of a thousand civilian lives, the possible future resentment of the various suspects, their families, and the groups that identify with them, the possible appreciation of the saved civilians, their families and groups, the psychological effects on the immediate torturers, their superiors and supporters,their families, the erosion of respect for human rights and dignity among all those who try to justify or even know of this use of torture, plus other un-anticipated side-effects that could last as long as the memory of this event. Also a precedent is created. After this case sadists might be more inclined to use torture where there is little or no likelihood of a good outcome.
[edit] How the term, the ends justify the means is used
Few people will use the ends justify the means to describe their own views; instead, the phrase is often used to cast suspicion on the actions or motivations of others.
Some free-market libertarians, following Robert Nozick, characterize their views using the reversed slogan the means justify the ends.
This phrase the ends justify the means is closely associated with Machiavelli and The Prince, credited with helping to advance the colonial and modern forms of imperialism. Though it should be noted, Machiavelli never wrote the phrase. A more literal translation is "One must consider the final result." (See List of famous misquotations) Also, most experts agree that Machiavelli wasn't necessarily advocating such an outlook in The Prince.
[edit] Religious outlook
Most religions do not endorse the utilitarian philosophy. For example, the golden rule, held by Jesus, and the Hindu doctrine of karma would both discourage actions based on a purely utilitarian justification. The rationale behind this is the doctrine that all will come to light (all will be known, discovered) in the end and that good begets good, and also the doctrine stating that this life on earth is not the primary life.
In Roman Catholic moral theology, Thomas Aquinas states explicitly that an end which is good does not justify the use of evil means to attain that end.Summa Theologiae I-II question 18 article 4
[edit] Necessary evil
A Necessary evil is a situation or act considered evil but necessary to ensure good in other areas or to prevent greater wrong. For example, those who believe that a war can be just consider a Just war a necessary evil.
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. Thomas Paine 1737-1809: Common Sense (1776)
[edit] References
- Little Oxford Dictionary of Quotations
- Search Results for “Necessary evil”
- Answers.com "The Ends Justify the Means"
