Introduction
Can a “Rotten Egg” make a “Good Omelette?” The end/means dilemma is an old and popular scenario. The answer to this question depends on what the type of goals or ends are and what means are being used to achieve them. Then, the ends do justify the means only when goals and means used to achieve them are good and noble. When a person says, "the ends justify the means" they are saying that if the end result is noble enough, it will justify whatever measures are taken to achieve that goal. Gandhi said that: “I feel that our progress towards the goal will be in exact proportion to the purity of our means”. Indeed, according to the Gandhian philosophy, the means and ends are like the two sides of the same coin. They are inseparable from each other. For example, Gandhiji struggled whole life against British and never adopted the wrong means
I. Do ends ethically justify their means?
That is not what most people mean when they use the expression "the ends justify the means". Most use it as an excuse to attain their goals through any means necessary, regardless of immoral, illegal or unpleasant aspect. What the expression usually means is something like “It doesn’t matter how you get what you want as long as you get it.” So “They say ‘means are after all means’. Whereas, Gandhi would say ‘means are after all everything’. As the means so the end”. For example, if someone got rich by ripping off other people does not mean that he/she is a good business person. It just
Thus bringing in to account the principle of lex talionis. Which is the right to be paid back with similar harm and the equality of persons. Meaning an eye for an eye, they deserve it because they did it therefore intimidating people from murdering because they don’t want to die. It is also to be said through Kantian ethics that a rational individual who kills another authorizes his own execution. Executing murderers sets as a statement that murder is absolutely evil and will not be tolerated.
They also killed and continued to kill everyone who does not follow their rules. Although in both 1984 and Macbeth the solution or end is somewhat met, the end did not justify the means after all the
In the book, Ender kills two other children out of self-defence. I think Orson Scott card is saying something about violence using this book. I think he is saying that violence is a complicated thing, and that you really can see it from three different angles. The first angle, is that violence is bad, and Card says this through Ender’s remorse and guilt when he finds out he killed Bonzo and Stilson. He’s saying that even though it was out of self-defence, lives we’re still taken and we shouldn’t normalize the killing of children just because they started the fight first.
This phrase can only be answered through perspective. As all things in history, there are two sides to this. The opinion formulated by this question depends on whether one values the goal or the means used to achieve that goal more. The position in which I take on this is that the ends do not justify the means.
An Eye for an Eye ¨An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.¨ The speaker of this quote, Mahatma Gandhi, was trying to express how evil revenge can be. When someone feels as if they have been wronged, they will stop at nothing to get their way and prove they’re not someone to mess with. The situation can only get worse because everyone has been blinded by their hatred. Actions can irritate someone even if they weren’t intended to.
The Ends Justify the Means The viscous bullies who get away with their bullying. The adults who fail to protect. The leaders who tell brutal lies. Ender Wiggin, a third, has to suffer all of these to save the human race from the buggers.
It is also wrong because it may beat the man physically down, but it won’t change how he understands. The last way is through nonviolent resistance. Nonviolent resistance brings the best of acquiescence and of violence. It grabs the nonviolent aspect of acquiescence, but not the conforming. It then grabs the objecting of oppression, but not the destruction.
Is it justifiable to kill in order to get revenge and peace? The death of Matt and Ruth’s son, Frank altered their lives. Losing their son put them in a dark place taking an enormous toll over their profound emotions. The hatred for Richard Strout, grew stronger daily. The story “Killings” Author Andre Dubus displayed disputes with the values of compassion, courage, and fairness.
Do the ends justify the mean? If you were an American soldier ready to be deployed for a massive land invasion of Japan, the atomic bombs saved your life. World War II ended when the United States dropped the atomic bombs and saved thousands of American lives. The French Revolution faced a similar dilemma. The rallying cry for the revolution was equality, liberty, and fraternity, bringing the first democracy to France.
What is the value of revenge if you get punished at the end for what you did ? Many people use the term “an eye for eye, a tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.” as a way to justify revenge. Most post-consequences aren’t just the death penalty or getting put into jail. An example is from “The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet”, Romeo killed Tybalt because Tybalt had killed Mercutio beforehand , this lead to Prince ordering the banishment of Romeo from Verona .
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).
Williams has an issue with the need to look at actions’ consequences to find any value in them. He believes that some actions have innate value regardless of their consequences. He compares the consequentialist’s position to that of a traveler who focuses only on the destination he is seeking to arrive at. Williams states that travelers don’t travel to arrive somewhere, they travel because they find value in the journey itself. There is something in this idea that can be applied to morality.
Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.
The power of good and evil fills humans. How we come about using which is argued upon by past ideologies. On one hand the Puritans, who had lived in the early settlement of the colonies around the 1600s, believed that the human use of good is out of fear of the consequence of their sins and the wrath of God (Lawson “Puritan Background”). The other known as humanism believes the nature of good comes from the wanting of helping fellow man and being a good person; humanism is popular from the days of founding fathers. The unique nature of humans and the way they behave cannot all be explained by just one theory; the way a human behaves is the combinations of all philosophies and sciences that mankind has created.
It is a results-based concept that gives no weight to the intentions that drive actions but, rather, places emphasis on the consequences of such actions. With specific reference to Bentham’s Utilitarianism and his incorporation of Hedonistic Calculus, this theory is simply derived from human being’s primal desires to seek pleasure and restrict pain, and suggests that morally good actions are those which would accomplish such. Furthermore, the idea of striving to achieve ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’ fuels an objection to this theory when considering the minority,