Choice #1 - The Ends and the Means The phrase “the end justifies the means” originates from the most famous writing of Niccolo Machiavelli titled On Principalities which is most commonly referred to as The Prince (McCormick, 2014). Machiavelli endorses with this phrase the approach of doing anything that is required to obtain the end result you desire. The doctrine does not discriminate between the technique used, be it good or evil, truth or lies and so on in order to obtain the preferred end results. For this reason, this doctrine should never be accepted in any circumstance. Using the End to Justified the Means Political doctrine is a result of the larger environment which is affected by influences including but not limited to heritage, political values, judgement as well as behavior (Reimer, Simon & Romance, 2014). The resulting doctrine should be for the benefit and security of the those living under the doctrine, whether it be in a town, city or country. Never the less, even in war situations this approach should not be accepted. Depending on the desires of those in power, it is possible for the end justified the means approach to result in a benefit for the inhabitants of the land, especially when used against enemies in war. The problem arises; A study detailed in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that power increased the moral identity among those with a strong moral character (DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis, & Ceranic, 2012). Unfortunately, the same study found that power decreases moral awareness in a person with a weak moral compass and this will result in acts of increased self-interest (DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis, & Ceranic, 2012). This truth combined with a policy of the end justifying the means is a formula for evil acts. An individual with weak moral character could easily digress into greater and greater crimes against humanity to fulfill
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
In consideration of how power functioned in both the Crucible and the Holocaust a tend of how an individual can use power to control, influence, benefit themselves, and also protect themselves from attacks can be seen. Human Nature compels us to gain power because of want, but once we have the power we will inherently use it to influence other because of the need of the individual to have their ideas agreed with. Power can either make a leader great or make a whole society or movement corrupt. Lessons can be used about how to effectively use power to properly initiate change and make a positive impact on the world.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
Power simply can be defined as control over resources. This control allows for individuals to bring about change. The influence of power typically has a negative impact on individuals. It has even been said that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Typically, as an individual gains power they tend to be less inhibited and act more based on their personal desires disregarding what is ethically right. Oftentimes, individuals lose sight of their morals in attempts to gain more power and exploit other people. Indeed, it is true that “with great power comes great responsibility” and whether an individual lets that responsibility corrupt them is a strong measure of their personal character (Ferguson and Peterson,
This is the idea that the reader can ponder. Still, people are always allowed to have their own opinions. However, Kierkegaard tries to show that nobody can judge another until the result can be seen. The end does justify the means.
This article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless. The article provides two main reasons that states engage in victimization of civilians; desperation or appetite for territorial conquest. The former refers to lowering costs of war on the states part by increasing the enemy’s cost and lowering the enemy’s morale for continuing the battle. The latter refers to a states want for more land to claim, using force and death to get what they want, by subduing or eliminating the enemy. The civilians who are targeted for these purposes are also chosen strategically. Mistreatment of civilians of the enemy occurs when specific values or traditions are seen as barbaric to the
...emned as a “means to an end.” The public now views the death of the convicted as a way to attain what they want: revenge. The execution is no longer a punishment, but rather part of gaining society’s satisfaction. In this case, the condemned lose the right to their own end, which strips them of their humanity by becoming an object in someone else’s satisfaction and defying Kant’s “Practical Imperative.” As I already mentioned a condemned man dehumanizes himself when murdering another human, however, after the murder takes place the condemned may start a redemption process, and because we know that redemption is a humane process, then we understand that the condemned begins to regain his humanity. Nevertheless, if society commences to use him as a “means to an end,” they once again dehumanize him making it difficult to apply ethics supporting Capital Punishment.
Justice in warfare has become an influential perspective. In particular the moral implication highlights the core importance of the ‘Just War’ theory. The principle was first established in ancient Rome 106-43 BC by Roman Philosopher Cicero, he stated that, ‘no war is considered just, unless it is preceded by an official demand for satisfaction or warning, and a formal declaration has been made’, (Cicero, 1913, p.38-39). Therefore, it is precedent that a war is established under the principle of justice. The theory was further coined by Roman Christian Philosopher, Augustine of Hippo (345-430 BC) and later carried on by Aquinas (1274 BC). The principle was used to pursue the question on when it was permissible to wage a war and the conduct of a war. Both Christian and Greek philosophers had conflicts on when and how to fight in a war. Therefore, the moral objective for both philosophers was to establish peace. During this period, Aquinas became one of the most influential philosophers on the just war principle. He argues that for a war to be just, it has to fulfil three criteria, ‘(1),the war had to be conducted not privately but under authority of a prince, (2) there had to be a just cause for the war, (3) it was necessary to have the right intention to promote good and avoid evil’, (Dinstein, 2005, p.64). Aquinas emphasises that the principle of jus ad bellum focuses on the moral justification for war. Whereas, the moral conduct of war is implemented through the principle of jus in Bello. Therefore, it can evaluated that the just war theory implements a set of rules to justify military warfare.
In conclusion, the human ambition for increased amount of power and influence causes the degradation of morality. This is proven through Macbeth’s new found untrustworthiness, his transformation into a deceitful tyrant and his loss of meaning for his life, and the lives of others. It is clear that power can transform all those who seek to gain and/or control it drastically.
Power is a quality, a tool, and a weapon utilized for a variety of reasons. It is in the form of a quality in which it gives the possessor, a sense of control. In the form of a weapon, power is possessed in order to produce a negative environment of hurt and punishment. But, in the form of a tool, power may be used in order to gain something more, something positive. Thus, power creates a sense of superiority which may result in consequences on both side of the spectrum, the good or the bad.
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
“The end justifies the means” is the famous quote of Machiavelli (Viroli, 1998) which puts the emphasis of morality on the finale results rather than the actions undertaken to achieve them. Is this claim true in the field of the natural sciences? Whether atomic bombings, as a mean used to end World War II, justifies the death of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What is moral limitation in the acquisition of knowledge in the natural sciences? How is art constrained by moral judgment? Is it applicable to various works of art? Oscar Wilde claimed that “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” (Wilde, 1945). Does it mean that writers should have complete freedom? Or should ethical considerations limit what they say and how they say it?