Do the ends justify the means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ends_justify_the_means

The ends justify the means
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"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.

Morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes
The implication is that good ends justify questionable means. Though such a view is implicit in many moral philosophies (especially utilitarianism), and almost all persons would be willing to commit small moral transgressions in the service of a greater good, the phrase is most often used to denote the much stronger view that any action in the service of an important enough cause is justified. This view is found in many radical political ideologies, and the atrocities committed by Jacobins, communists, capitalists, fascists, and others are often attributed to a form of moral blindness in which a powerful ultimate goal becomes an excuse to ignore ordinary moral considerations.

George Washington's family motto, "Exitus acta probat," roughly translates as "the end justifies the means" (literally, it means "the end proves action").

In some applications at least, this argument is related to the question of serving the greater good in which the means is detrimental to an individual or a small (i.e., minority) group while appearing 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). 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.

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 the above dilemma, the ends would include one tortured culprit and a thousand saved civilians.

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 .

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, but may be called the Shadowlands.

-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.goenglish.com/TheEndsJustifyTheMeans.asp

The Ends Justify The Means ( our actions are called for by this situation ... )

"the ends justify the means"

The "ends" are our end goals and the "means" are the specific actions we take to achieve those goals. "The ends justify the means" when the actions we take are considered acceptable because of the specific end results we want to achieve. Example: "I would prefer to do things differently, but in this situation, the ends justify the means." This saying is often used in the negative: "I agree with your goal, but the ends do not justify the means."

-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.obmnetwork.com/resources/articles/Abernathy_MeansEnds/

Performance Management: Do the Means Justify the Ends
by William B. Abernathy, Ph.D. Abernathy & Associates

-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-endmeans.htm

Myth: The end doesn't justify the means.

Fact: Life would come to a stop if people tried to obey this rule.
Summary

It is virtually impossible to go through a day without using a negative mean to achieve a positive end.

Argument

This is one of the worst pieces of logic you'll find anywhere, in this debate or any other. In reality, the end frequently justifies the means.

Normally we would be opposed to cutting up someone with a knife. Yet we condone the goals of a surgeon who does exactly that.

Normally we would be opposed to killing a person. Yet we condone the goals of a self-defender who does exactly that.

Normally we would be opposed to poisoning someone with a deadly virus. Yet we condone the goals of a vaccination nurse who does exactly that.

Similar examples gleaned from real life are too numerous to mention. Opposed to inflicting pain on anyone? Then your aerobics instructor is guilty of sin. Opposed to depriving anyone of their freedom? Then your county jailer is a tyrant. Opposed to lying to anyone? Then you can never bluff in poker.

As far as affirmative action goes, most liberals justify the means (affirmative action goals) to achieve a desirable end (justice for harmful racial discrimination). Conservatives might argue that hiring goals are the wrong way to go about correcting racial discrimination, or that such discrimination doesn't exist, or at least is not harmful. But what they can't argue is that the end doesn't justify the means.


-----------------------------------------
http://radicalacademy.com/adlerendsmeans.htm

Does The End Justify The Means?
by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

Does the end justify the means? Can it sometimes be right to use a bad means to achieve a good end? Don't the conditions of human life require some shadiness and deceit to achieve security and success?

First, let's try to understand the sense in which the word "justifies" is used in the familiar statement that "the end justifies the means." After that we can consider the problem you raise about whether it is all right to employ any means - good or bad - so long as the end is good.

When we say that something is "justified," we are simply saying that it is right. Thus, for example, when we say that a college is justified in expelling a student who falls below a passing mark, we are acknowledging that the college has a right to set certain standards of performance and to require its students to meet them. Hence, the college is right in expelling the student who doesn't.

Or, to take another example, if a man refuses to pay a bill for merchandise he did not receive, we would say that he is justified. He is in the right. But if a signed receipt can be offered to show that someone in his family received the merchandise without informing him, the store would be justified in demanding payment.

Now, nothing in the world can justify a means except the end which it is intended to serve. A means can be right only in relation to an end, and only by serving that end. The first question to be asked about something proposed as a way of achieving any objective whatsoever is always the same. Will it work? Will this means, if employed, accomplish the purpose we have in mind? If not, it is certainly not the right means to use.

But the purpose a man has in mind may be something as plainly wrong as stealing or murder. With such an end in view, he may decide that certain things will help him succeed and others won't. While he would be right, from the point of view of mere expediency, in using the former and not the latter, is he right morally in taking whatever steps might serve as means to his end? If not, then he is not morally justified in employing such means.

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Since a bad end is one that we are not morally justified in seeking, we are not morally justified in taking any steps whatsoever toward its accomplishment. Hence, no means can be justified - that is, made morally right - by a bad end.

But how about good ends? We are always morally justified in working for their accomplishment. Are we, then, also morally justified in using any means which will work? The answer to that question is plainly Yes; for if the end is really good, and if the means really serves the end and does not defeat it in any way, then there can be nothing wrong with the means. It is justified by the end, and we are justified in using it.

People who are shocked by this statement overlook one thing: If an action is morally bad in itself, it cannot really serve a good end, even though it may on the surface appear to do so. Men in power have often tried to condone their use of violence or fraud by making it appear that their injustice to individuals was for the social good and was, therefore, justified. But since the good society involves justice for all, a government which employs unjust means defeats the end it pretends to serve. You cannot use bad means for a good end any more than you can build a good house out of bad materials.

It is only when we do not look too closely into the matter that we can be fooled by the statement that the end justifies the means. We fail to ask whether the end in view is really good, or we fail to examine carefully how the means will affect the end. This happens most frequently in the game of power politics or in war, where the only criterion is success and anything which contributes to success is thought to be justified. Success may be the standard by which we measure the expediency of the means, but expediency is one thing and moral justification is another.