Do the ends justify the means?
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:07 am
.
Is it morally okay to use any means to reach a goal, as
Long as you come out ‘the winner’?
On the topic of The MEANS-ENDS relationship
I may be wrong, but it seem to me that ends are related
to means used: if you want peace, use peaceful means.
If love is your end (your goal), use loving means to get to
it. If you want stability in a marriage, or in the world, then
stable means are required to reach your end-in-view.
Isn't it reasonable to be aware that chaotic or destructive
means will not in themselves result in a stable, sustainable
state of affairs. A state of justice is a state of balance;
to be in balance we cannot use means that are
out of balance.
That to me is the most basic point to learn about The
Means/Ends relationship. The means ought to be
compatible with the ends desired.
(For example, Woodrow Wilson said that World War I
would be "a war to end all war."
You don't put an end to wars by waging one.
Furthermore, what is an 'end' today was a 'means'
yesterday. For example, an engagement (getting engaged)
is an end to dating around, and is a means to a marriage. It
is both, a means, and an end. Doesn't this imply hat means
must be compatible with ends? That's why the means/ends
relationship is important.
What do you think about this crucial ethical
principle? Does it work for you?
Is it morally okay to use any means to reach a goal, as
Long as you come out ‘the winner’?
On the topic of The MEANS-ENDS relationship
I may be wrong, but it seem to me that ends are related
to means used: if you want peace, use peaceful means.
If love is your end (your goal), use loving means to get to
it. If you want stability in a marriage, or in the world, then
stable means are required to reach your end-in-view.
Isn't it reasonable to be aware that chaotic or destructive
means will not in themselves result in a stable, sustainable
state of affairs. A state of justice is a state of balance;
to be in balance we cannot use means that are
out of balance.
That to me is the most basic point to learn about The
Means/Ends relationship. The means ought to be
compatible with the ends desired.
(For example, Woodrow Wilson said that World War I
would be "a war to end all war."
You don't put an end to wars by waging one.
Furthermore, what is an 'end' today was a 'means'
yesterday. For example, an engagement (getting engaged)
is an end to dating around, and is a means to a marriage. It
is both, a means, and an end. Doesn't this imply hat means
must be compatible with ends? That's why the means/ends
relationship is important.
What do you think about this crucial ethical
principle? Does it work for you?