Do the Ends Justify the Means?
It would seem to me that the ends do indeed justify the means, and I will explain why. First, however, a reasonable definition of both "ends" and "means" must be established. I will define them as follows:
Means: the actions you take to produce the desired goal
Ends: the intended goal that is being fulfilled by your actions
The problem comes in determining how far down the line to go in terms of results. For example, imagine a scenario where if I take a step I will fall off a cliff. That would be a bad effect in and of itself, however, if we look further down the line we find out that I am cliff jumping, and will fall into water. All situations need context, as I would not jump off of a cliff if I did not know I would be safe.
For my argument, I will say the goal of that particular action in that situation is how far we should go. For example, my goal in life is happiness. Although writing this discussion may indeed help with that life goal, it is not my objective in this situation. My objective in this situation is to answer the question proposed in the title.
I will now make my argument.
-Actions are considered good or evil (right or wrong) based on their goal which is being accomplished by the consequences of that particular action.
-If the goal being accomplished is good then something is considered right.
- As I stated earlier, we need context to judge an action.
-That context is a goal, which shows why someone did something.
-Therefore, we measure actions based on the goal being accomplished.
-The ends justify the means.
Means: the actions you take to produce the desired goal
Ends: the intended goal that is being fulfilled by your actions
The problem comes in determining how far down the line to go in terms of results. For example, imagine a scenario where if I take a step I will fall off a cliff. That would be a bad effect in and of itself, however, if we look further down the line we find out that I am cliff jumping, and will fall into water. All situations need context, as I would not jump off of a cliff if I did not know I would be safe.
For my argument, I will say the goal of that particular action in that situation is how far we should go. For example, my goal in life is happiness. Although writing this discussion may indeed help with that life goal, it is not my objective in this situation. My objective in this situation is to answer the question proposed in the title.
I will now make my argument.
-Actions are considered good or evil (right or wrong) based on their goal which is being accomplished by the consequences of that particular action.
-If the goal being accomplished is good then something is considered right.
- As I stated earlier, we need context to judge an action.
-That context is a goal, which shows why someone did something.
-Therefore, we measure actions based on the goal being accomplished.
-The ends justify the means.
Comments (90)
What if human beings are the brick and mortar of said goal, for instance in the former Soviet Union? Mao’s China? The ends did justify the means but the end was never realized. Instead we get tyranny and corpses.
Quoting Lawrence of Arabia
This is actually just a reformulated way of saying the ends justify the means, so it doesnt work as an argument/premiss. This is your conclusion disguised as a premiss. Someone could just as easily assert the opposite, that actions are good or evil independent of the goal.
Quoting Lawrence of Arabia
No, the goal being good only establishes that the goal is good. Individual actions towards any goal (be that goal good or bad) can be moral, immoral, or amoral. Walking for example is something you might do as part of the process of something virtuous (work at a charity or a soup kitchen maybe) but that doesnt make walking morally good. Its amoral. By your model, anything done towards a good goal is likewise good, but again this is just asserting your conclusion as part of your premiss.
Quoting Lawrence of Arabia
While I tend to agree, there are moral systems under which that is not the case. A principal based approach is like this, for example.
Quoting Lawrence of Arabia
Just including this for completeness sale, this could be merged with the previous one, very nearly redundant.
Quoting Lawrence of Arabia
No sir, “therefore” nothing. This doesnt and shouldnt pertain only to morality and so its not part of a moral argument. Your previous premisses do not establish this, so no “therefore” for you Im afraid.
Quoting Lawrence of Arabia
So obviously I do not agree with your conclusion here. The ends CAN justify the means, but I dont see how thats always the case.
exactly. The end was never realized, or as it was in both the end was not as it seemed. So the "intended" end still justified the means.
Edit: this is in response to NOS4A2's comment
Well, thanks for pointing out every error in my argument. I good counter-argument I must say.
That is a good explanation, and considering that my original argument is void thanks to dingo, I think I'll accept that explanation.
What do you mean by affirming consent?
Falsification and the ethical analogue thereof are, instead, the valid move of denying the consequent.
Hate to disagree with you again considering your gentlemanly response but I dont think your argument is void. I think there is some interesting things to say about the end justifying the means.
Right, using my phone so auto-correct got me in that.
So you going to answer the question? It would have been pretty easy to make a pedantic correction AND actually answer the question. Give it a try, I believe in you.
Confirmationism commits that fallacy when it infers from some theory implying an observation that such an observation would also imply the theory’s truth. That’s invalid. Instead, falsificationism validly infers only that if such an observation is contradicted, the theory is false.
Consequentialism likewise commits the fallacy, or a moral analogue of it at least, when it infers from good consequences following from an action that the action itself is good, the ends justifying the means. That’s not valid, or “deontically valid” i.e. just, but inferring that bad consequences imply a bad action is.
So for example if I justified lying to someone in order to save 1 million innocent peoples lives...thats a fallacy?
I am with Huxley on this.
Whats fallacious about that statement, because it isnt that its affirming the consequent. You are misusing that term in your comments, hence I immediately asked what YOU mean by affirming the consequent. You confirmed that you use the standard definition, but then you again misapplied it (to my lies for lives example) so Im confused.
Did you mean that some other fallacy is being made in my lies for lives example? What fallacy?
Glad you brought up Huxley, there.
Quoting Pantagruel
Which explains why things turned out so poorly under Lenin and his immediate successor, Stalin, a committed "achieve the ends or else, never mind the means" kind of dictator.
The following is a formally invalid argument that hinges on affirming the consequent in a modal context:
P -> Q
[]Q
.: []P
Whether those box operators are alethic necessity or deontic obligation. If we take them as deontic, and P = “You lie” and Q = “Lives are saved”, we get the argument you were making, which is still invalid. It may nevertheless be the case that []P anyway, though; but this argument doesn’t show that.
But an argument of this form is valid:
P -> Q
[]~Q
.: []~P
So consequences are still relevant, they just can’t positively justify any particular means, only rule them out.
:up:
Ya, you are still misapplying terms, trying to cram formal logic where none was intended or needed. Your objections do not apply to my statement.
Nice try but Im not buying it, so its a hard pass from me.
if I understand Pfhorrest correctly, he is saying that it is consequentialism because the original argument for ends justify the means was that if the conclusion is good, then the means must also be good. That argument is a fallacy, as was pointed out. The conclusion may be true, however, as with your lies for lives example.
The 'ends' are not this.
The 'ends' are all the consequences to all people over both the short term and the long term as a result of the action taken.
What is your reasoning for that? I accepted my definition as a postulate (with a small amount of reasoning) because I did not think someone could come up with an objective definition of ends. If you have, by all means, share.
Additionally, the small reasoning I choose my definition was that "ends justify the means" is usually used before the ends are fully realized. It is impossible to accurately predict every single consequence of one's action(s), so one must assume the most probable thing that is to happen. One usually knows what is likely to happen when committing his action, but may not be able to see what is hidden, hence "intended goal".
Quoting A Seagull
The problem is that is is impossible to do this. If I build a house for the homeless, but it ends up collapsing and killing ten people due to a faulty screw, I could not have foreseen that (at least in this little imaginary scenario. Pretend the screw looked normal and was inspected). There are trillions upon trillions of possible effects of an action, and it is improbable to take them all into account.
The consequences of an action are only revealed once they happen, eliminating the need for "the ends justify the means" under your definition. However this phrase was used, so not all people have accepted this definition of ends.
What if you are a murderer and rapist, then you jumping off a cliff and onto solid ground rather than a lake, would be a good means to a good end.
Quoting ovdtogt
What if those that were "sacrificed" were against creating the Utopia as imagined by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc.? What is a Utopia and who gets to define it?
To say that something is good or bad is subjective. So what may be good means and ends for one, may be bad for another. There are no objective good or bad means and ends, only subjective ones.
You seem to be missing my point.
In your example, you are able to consider the possibility of the house collapsing, so you can also ascribe a certain, albeit small, probability of this occurring. What is then required is a consideration of all the possible consequences that you can think of and ascribing probabilities to each and then totting them all up.
Your point about my post is true, however, the point I was making was just that situations need future context, as I assumed but did not write that past context is readily available, nor did I think very much of it. Thank you for pointing that out. ( I also assumed I was not a murder or rapist, which I am in fact not either of those)
I gave the house example as a means to try to give a practical example, but as you noticed it has some flaws. The point I attempted to make was that you cannot predict all futures, as there are trillions upon trillions of them. One can only see the future when it comes to pass.
:up: :victory:
Well, it would have not been so bad if all these millions slaughtered had brought about a Utopia. Where is this Utopia?
Read the rest of my post. Its not just about future and past contexts. It is about subjective moral contexts that might disagree about what is good and what is bad. If what is good or bad is subjective, then what does it mean to say there are good or bad means and ends?
I think "ends" most properly does refer to "objectives", while "results" might better characterize the net consequences. The goal being that ends and results should be equal. Realistically, there usually are unintended consequences/results.
What function does blame achieve when it come to result or consequence?
Personally I endorse this view fully but reluctantly so. Fully because it isn't too hard for the trolley problem to become a reality. Reluctantly because I feel there's a fundamental problem with such scenarios which is brought into relief by the fact that situations where one says "the ends justify the means" are those where there is no alternative but to do something bad to achieve the good. What I mean is that such situations are crisis events where choices collapse to one single morally questionable and yet necessary action and that too for the good.
In "normal" conditions there are many choices and at least one among them will satisfy the condition that both the means and the ends are good.
Not exactly sure what you mean by function?
As for responsibility how much accounting is there for individual or contributive control of consequences?
Do you mean are you responsible for things you cause that are beyond your control? Personally, I think if you do something, then you should make every effort to fully understand the scope of impact. If you act under the assumption of full responsibility, presumably you would minimize unintended effects.
one: The availability of the means varies with circumstance. A person whose life might be saved outside a war zone might have to die under combat conditions. Availability of means may also reflect ideological restrictions in the agent's society. Witness the Catholic doctrine on artificial birth control. In a Catholic country, you might find no condoms in the drug store--just ovulation calendars.
Hence the old proverb: "If a hammer is the only tool you've got, pretty soon every problem starts looking like a nail."
two: The tendencies of the agent in this scenario condition the means, which in turn condition the ends. Everybody says they want law and order, but a militaristic dictatorship uses slightly different means to achieve that goal than a moderate representative government. The results tend to contrast, as anyone who has fled a fascist or communist dictatorship knows. Similarly, an aggressive parent will use different means to get compliance from his or her children than a more empathic parent--or a more negligent one.
Rich privilege, power, and comfort seems to justify any means possible according to the rich, however.
Drama queen.
This is pretty much exactly how I have always felt on this. It has always seemed obvious to me, and yet it is a strangely uncommon opinion. Glad to hear it from another human.
Yeah. Unfortunately many of the world leaders don’t see it that way.
With practical matters that have little or no relevance to moral ones, sure. If one wants to do X, and doing X requires doing A, B, and C, then X 'justifies' doing A, B, and C.
There are problems with the argument presented in the OP.
Why someone did something is personal motive. "Why" is a question about one's own reasoning, psychology, and/or motivation. That said, it takes learning the context to determine one's motive. The extenuating circumstances, should there be any, are relevant to the goal, but they are not equivalent to it. Context is not equivalent to the goal. So, there's something amiss with saying otherwise.
The context in which a goal(the ends) was imagined is not the goal. The context in which the plan for reaching, meeting, achieving, obtaining, and/or otherwise satisfying that goal is not the goal.
Generally speaking...
If the ends justify the means, and the goal can be anything whatsoever at all, then to hell with what's good, what's right, what's best, what's fair, what's considerate of others, what's moral, etc.
It's also commonly used ex post facto to gloss over previously clear wrongdoings by diverting attention to some purportedly 'net positive' consequence of the wrongdoing.
From a prior discussion:
Quoting 180 Proof
The reason the dictum “the ends justify the means” is usually dismissed, is that it would allow for an action that are unequivocally bad in itself if only it produces an ultimately good result. For example, killing a million people to produce Utopia. Jumping off a cliff is not bad in itself, like your example shows (you could be safely diving into water). Killing a million people is always bad, but jumping off a cliff is only sometimes bad.
How about killing just one person to produce Utopia? That one killing is still bad, although one might argue that it’s worth it.
What if it was only a matter of hurting your toe to reach Utopia? Hurting your toe is still always bad in itself (not like the jumping off a cliff example), but few people would have a problem with it.
Obviously, the ends justify some (bad) means.
Is there any end in the world that would justify any means however horrible? A yes to that question would make you an extreme supporter of the phrase.
The utilitarian standpoint is that an end would justify some means that may be immoral considered in itself. It’s ok to lie to save a human life, for example.
The deontological standpoint denies that: It’s never ok to lie even if it saves a human life.
No. Not without undermining its end (i.e. 'destroy the X to save the X' (Ben Tre 1968), 'just following orders' (Nuremberg 1945-46) ... etc).
Well, that would be merely a practical consideration. Obviously, destroying your goal in the quest for that goal would be a rather imprudent strategy regardless of its moral content.
The question was rather if there is an end that is so great that if you could actually achieve it, it would justify any horrible action. Say you could reach Utopia, your perfect society, by cutting off ten million heads. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Utopia would be reached for sure if only you made that sacrifice. (In reality, of course Utopia could never be reached but in this thought experiment a successful outcome is a hundred percent certain.) Ten million killed and a hundred million get to live in a perfect society: Would it be worth it? Would it be moral? It still sounds horrible, doesn’t it?
Now instead of ten million, make it just one single person. To reach Utopia only one insignificant human being would have to be sacrificed. Wouldn’t it then be quite unethical not to kill that person? What right does he have to steal the happiness of a hundred million?
But then, what’s the difference between one and ten million? If in principle it’s ethically acceptable to kill one person, why not ten million?
However, when I hear "the end justify the means", I think what is actually being said (or intended) is typically something along the lines of "the means do not invalidate the end". From this perspective, is there still a problem?
@180 Proof As the most recent defender, and a consistent strong proponent of "ends never justify means", what do you think? If my post is not clear enough, let me know and I can try giving examples.
@Noah Te Stroete As someone whose view I agreed with (and still do), I just wanted to make sure you do not disagree with my concessions (I like to think my overall point is still 100% in agreement with what you said earlier in the thread).
My position can be illustrated with an example. Suppose a nation was deeply divided at the point or almost to the point of a civil war. Suppose the end goal is to unify the country, a very good goal. Then suppose the ruler of this country decided the quickest and easiest way to unify the country was to vilify a minority group, convincing the populace that ridding the country of this minority would solve nearly all of their problems. The country unified and exterminates the vilified minority. Let’s even say that afterwards there were decades of peace.
Not even then do I agree that the ends justifies the means.
However, some ends can be brought about by many different means, provided the means aren’t exactly evil.
Well I think your example shows we are in agreement. I would say that is a good example where the means DO invalidate the ends. However, if I just have to kill one person for that lasting peace, PERHAPS the ends are worth it? And if that one person is me, then problem solved, the most morally admirable behavior would be to kill myself (whether I can live up to these lofty standards is another question).
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Agreed. I MIGHT (would need details of each situation) even accept a little bit of "evil" if it brings about a lot of good.
I suppose there is all at least a little evil in working towards any end, whether intended or unintended. Also, if killing myself brought about world peace, then I would line up in front of the firing squad tomorrow. I’m usually not all that thrilled about life most days anyway, but in reality I fail to see how this would bring about world peace. My example about exterminating a minority, unfortunately, is all too common a situation in the history of humanity. Except, of course, peace never followed and the intended ends were never realized. Much like almost anything in the politics of a nation. the ends are almost never realized.
Haha, my thoughts exactly (although whether I would go through with it is still unknown - I like to think I would).
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Yes, probably not a very realistic scenario...just using extremes to simplify the morality.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
And this fact (that ends are rarely realized) just further adds to our analysis of which means are acceptable - we had better lean toward not using "evil" means as we will likely fail to reach our desired end anyway.
:up:
Isn’t it a luxury to sit around theorising about this idea and very likely never, ever having to make a decision, and yet there are those out there who must make these decisions.
They usually serve themselves foremost (in the US, their re-election), so I don’t see then as worthy of empathy.
That’s an easy generalisation. Once again you are unlikely to have to make such a decision.
It’s an accurate generalization, but you are correct that I will never have power.
It’s not accurate. You’ve chosen only to look at politicians. What about politicians in wartime, the military who decide where to deploy soldiers, budgets and health decisions; where the money should go?
The commander in chief is a politician, and the decisions about budgets and health are made by politicians. It is an accurate generalization.
I understand that you are disgusted by me, and you relate to those in power more than you do to me. This does not at all surprise me, and it is quite typical. You should also know that I’m not at all bothered by it.
So all decisions made by all politicians are corrupt?
Was the decision to send convoys from the US to Britain, carrying men and equipment, knowing that there were submarines that would sink some of the ships corrupt? Was sending men up into the air during the Battle of Britain, knowing that many wouldn’t return, corrupt?
Not entirely. But you are forgetting that there are leaders of the “evil” countries, too. World leaders worldwide don’t care about you. Why do you care about them? They are mainly concerned about themselves and what will give them a good name.
Why bother with leaders of evil countries. There’s no debate there about their intentions.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
It’s not just world leaders who must make decisions based on outcomes. It’s leaders or people required to make decisions that you must also consider. If you think you’re world has been constructed out of corruption then I can’t argue with you. But do you really believe the benefits you receive now aren’t the result of someone making tough decisions in the past?
Of course they were tough decisions. FDR stood up to the “royalists”, and LBJ gave us Medicare. I am grateful for those decisions. But do you think I’m disgusting for having opinions?
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
First of all you brought up the word disgusting. I said it was a luxury to sit around theorising about means and ends.
Of course you can have an opinion, and my opinion is that it’s a luxury to sit around theorising about means ands ends when there are those who must actually do it.
But they also got to be presidents. I can’t relate to someone who craves power. That’s just me. Just as you can’t relate to someone who is on disability who “sits around theorizing all day”.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Dirty.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
And you just take examples that serve your purpose.
That’s the impression I got.
From what?
No. I “generalized” just like you said. I don’t relate to leaders. Like I said, that’s just me. I am well within my right to have views whether they are a luxury or not. I’m supposed to be a “well-informed citizen”. That’s what the founders of my country wanted.
In 1965 Martin Luther led a march from Selma to Montgomery. At some point he feared there would be real violence ahead and turned the march around. He was criticised for this. What do you think of his decision, should he have done that? How would you go in that position? Is this man a leader?
We are in a nice position to sit around and debate this stuff. If we were actually in the thick of it we (most people) would be too emotional to do anything close to an objective analysis. So we do it now, with no skin in the game so to speak, so that one day when the pressure is on, we can remember our conclusions that we arrived at in a less emotional state...I wish we knew all world leaders had honed their morals to such an extent.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Or too inadequate. I think some experience is required to do this. I don’t know what would contribute to that experience. Even with experience maybe only so many would be up to it. Anyway I’m not sure if this is really the subject of the OP.
Quoting NOS4A2
I would agree with you. But expect posters to jump about the definition of “just”.
But ends do not justify means that corrupt them.
The problem is to determine when the latter occurs. It is not always easy. That is, states of emergency confronting an exceptional situation.
If the goal is good and accomplished then the goal justifies the means.
My goal is the give my kids breakfast. But the nearest store is closed and they need to get to school. I drive my car through the locked doors of the nearest grocery store and leave money for the cereal I take. It is a good goal to give my kids breakfast. I did manage to give them breakfast, so the end, giving them breakfast, justifies the means, me destroying property.
Now there may be something in what I quoted above that you wrote that means I have not understood your position, let me know.
You can look at a specific course of action and ask whether or not your chosen means to arrive at your desired end is moral. You cannot evaluate either ends or means separately or establish a general principle that "the ends justify the means"..
I agree that experience is important, but part of the point of these intellectual exercises is that they are BEYOND experience. Notice that I can only sacrifice my life for the good of other people once. I can't experience that action and learn from it. So the thought experiment is actually as close as I can get to personally experiencing it (I can admit that watching another human go through the real experience might be closer...but that is pretty much never going to happen either).
I do agree that these thought experiments are very much "inadequate" (that is why I say "I like to think I would do it"). But they are as close as most of can get to the actual experience.
And yes, it is very easy (especially for me) to get off topic in these threads...I think we are only one or two posts removed from the original topic...so I have done worse :grimace:
Good stuff :up: I think your first paragraph captures what I have been rambling on about for pages in just a few lines.