EHS EST World History/World Literature

Monday, January 23, 2006

Read the excerpt from "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli found in your text (pg. R50, in the back).
Respond to the following prompt yourself. You must also read and respond to the comment of at least one of your peers.
2. Many people associate Machiavelli with the idea of "the ends justify the means".
What does this statement mean?
Provide at least one historical example where a leader applied this principle.
Do you believe the ends justify the means? Why or why not?

posted by Tanya Judd Pucella at 2:05 PM

55 Comments:

  • The statement "the ends justify the means" means that the end results that come from someone's actions will justify the means that person took to get there. One historical example where a leader applied this principle is Hitler. He thought that even though alot of death and destruction was happening in order to get what he wanted, that one day a perfect society would be created, and he would be in total control. To him that end result would justify the means of killing so many people. But I do not think the ends justified the means in any way in that situation because innocent people were horrifically killed just to please one person. -Emma Robbinson

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:14 PM  

  • People’s tendency to associate Machiavelli with the idea of “the ends justify the means” comes from his belief the end result was the ultimate goal regardless of the way this goal was achieved. This ideal can be seen not only in everyday life, but throughout history as well. Take, for example, Hitler and his desire to rid the Aryan race of “impurities” and races he felt threatened his. To do this, he implemented the cruelest of ways in order to achieve his goal: from alienating the Jews, to persecuting them and sending them to concentration camps. Obviously, to Hitler, the “ends justified the means” because if the end product meant his race would become free of impurities and would no longer be threatened by races below his, then no course of action was too harsh; from his point of view, his actions were justified.
    Personally, I don’t believe the ends should ever justify the means because of the repercussions that are brought along from a negative action. Frequently then, the question will arise, what if the “end” is a noble cause? Even then, noble causes call for noble actions; a man who steals bread to give to a hungry child is stealing nevertheless. The same bread could have been purchased by a man who worked hard to earn his money, with an equally hungry child at home. Furthermore, apply this idea to today’s events. The war in Iraq has claimed well over 2,000 soldier’s lives. The amount is even greater if added on to the number of civilian casualties. While many hope this conflict results in Iraq’s internal peace and democracy, the death toll’s constant growth allows us to wonder whether or not the “ends” truly justify the “means.” I don’t think so. – Natalia C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:08 PM  

  • Emma - I agree, the ends should never justify the means. People's rights should not be violated in order to obtain peace, people should not be killed in order to obtain "purity." If the ultimate goal is a noble cause, then no harm should ever be caused to attain it - Natalia C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:33 PM  

  • I believe that the ends do not justify the means. Machiavelli believes it does not matter how the ends are achieved, which would allow a leader to use unethical and immoral ways to solve problems. Our society depends upon laws to preserve our democracy. A leader should abide by the same laws and the citizens. If our leaders become corrupt, they should be removed from office. For example, President Nixon was forced to resign over the Watergate scandal.
    -Caroline Maddox

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:46 PM  

  • The statement "the ends justify the means" means that whatever actions occur will help with the end result. In other words, the a person's actions will seem better or will make sense at the end of what thet are trying to accomplish. This can easily be applied to "big brother". Over the years, the government has been monitoring all forms of media such as television, radio, and phone conversations and this has become more evident with President Bush. Although this is nothing new, people have been questioning the reason behind this breach in privacy. That is the "means" and currently, that just seems wrong to most people, but the "end" is a safer and more secure America. That is what a lot of people want, a safe America, and it just so happens that we must give up some freedoms for that to happen. I do not really believe in "the end justifies the mean" because there is almost always another way. We can actually find a better way to do most things if we just look and try hard enough. We cannot continue to just take the first idea to solve a problem and run with it without thinking it over, which is what most people do.
    -Arthur J

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:03 PM  

  • The statement that ".. the ends justifys the means", means that any action should be taken possible in order to reach a final result. This means that if it means killing hundreds of thousands to solve a problem, then this is a necessary action in order to save the rest of human kind. An example of this is during the Vietnam war were in order for the American Army to fight the insurgents located in the thick forested areas, they used "Agent Orange". This agent was know that it would not only erode the trees, but it would kill those that it got on, since this was an acidic agent. And, this action was necessary in order to fight the Guriellas located in this forest more effectively.
    I personally dont believe that the ends justify the means. During the periods of Racism in America, if the blacks took upon this statement and decided to kill all of those that opposed them and didn't want intergration, we would not be were we are today. So I personally think that the end doesn't justify the means.
    Josias C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:44 PM  

  • The statement that ".. the ends justifys the means", means that any action should be taken possible in order to reach a final result. This means that if it means killing hundreds of thousands to solve a problem, then this is a necessary action in order to save the rest of human kind. An example of this is during the Vietnam war were in order for the American Army to fight the insurgents located in the thick forested areas, they used "Agent Orange". This agent was know that it would not only erode the trees, but it would kill those that it got on, since this was an acidic agent. And, this action was necessary in order to fight the Guriellas located in this forest more effectively.
    I personally dont believe that the ends justify the means. During the periods of Racism in America, if the blacks took upon this statement and decided to kill all of those that opposed them and didn't want intergration, we would not be were we are today. So I personally think that the end doesn't justify the means.
    Josias C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:46 PM  

  • I agree with Arthurs statement, there has to be non-invasive ways to create a wanted end result. Some things just need to be thought out in steps instead of in a rush like most people do. If you sit down and think about it there are many ways to achieve a end result that will satisfy you. Josias C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:48 PM  

  • I agree with what Arthur and Josias have stated about their disbeliefs of " the ends justify the means". I do not believe that one should take any opportunity given to him just because he believes it will help him at the time. I agree with Arthur in that one should be able to think the situation over and figure out an enhanced way of approaching the opportunity given.
    -Caroline Maddox

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:03 PM  

  • I agree with Emma's statement. Nmatter what you believe, there is no justifying killing a mass number of people. True, things may make more sense after you know what the wanted end result is but there is a limit to what the means justifies. Anything that breaks the law, both heavenly and worldly, cannot be justified in my opinion. Then, things are just wrong and we know why a person did what they did, but there was most likely another way to achieve what you wanted.
    -Arthur J

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:55 PM  

  • When Machiavelli said "the ends justify the means" he was referring to how the sacrifices a person has to make to take action should balance out with the results that come from it. In other words, the positive outcome should equal the negative means that were made to take action.
    One example of this is how the Chinese government decided to not let any foreign products or people into their country to isolate the country and preserve its culture. In my opinion, these ends did justify the means. Even though China was invaded and taken advantage of by other nations (Britain, Monguls) and the country was under much foreign rule, their unique traditions were preserved through the years, which was the ultimate goal.
    -Parker K.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:14 PM  

  • I agree with both of Josias' examples. Using agent orange in vietnam had unexpected results. It killed the trees and infected people. This shows that there can be unexpected ends that could offset the reasonable means that were taken. The example about dealing with racism is America's past also shows how sometimes the means will definately not justify the ends, and how there are other ways to find a solution, even if they do take longer.
    -Parker K.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:20 PM  

  • The statement "the ends justify the means" means that the outcome of a situation makes up for everything it took to get to the final result. For example, Susan B. Anthony defied against common opinion at the time that women were less important than men. She told people of her views and went against social beliefs by wearing pants outside, which at the time was highly frowned upon to do as a woman. Although she caused much controversy, all of her hard work paid off and led to the breaking of negative views towards women, and the gain of priveledges such as the right to vote.

    In most cases i would not agree with the ends justify the means, because it becomes used as an excuse to overlook all horrible deeds done, just because they lead to a positive result. The only time I would agree with ends justifying means is when the means never hurt anyone or anything, such as with Susan B. Anthony who never hurt anyone, just caused controversy.

    -Elena P.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:16 PM  

  • I like chelsea's opinion. There are some instances in which ends do justify means. This stresses the fact that the "means" do not always have to be negative. For example, in order to graduate, we need a certain number of community service hours. If our means to get these hours are to volunteer at a nursing home, then, even though the ends were somewhat selfish, they are justified by the fact that we were helping others.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:16 PM  

  • I like chelsea's opinion. There are some instances in which ends do justify means. This stressed the fact that the "means" do not always have to be negative. For example, in order to graduate, we need a certain number of community service hours. If our means to get these hours are to volunteer at a nursing home, then, even thought the ends were somewhat selfish, they are justified by the fact that we were helping others.

    -Danielle Simmons

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:16 PM  

  • I agree with Chelsea because not all means are negative. Though some means may not be the most popular way of doing something, that does not make them wrong. As long do not hurt anyone or anything, all means are justified. There are numerous ways of doing things that will result in the same, positive outcome.
    - Elena P.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:20 PM  

  • This statement to me means that you do what ever you have to, to get what you want no matter the consequences [good or bad]. I think that an example of this quote would be the Watergate tapes and Nixon's involvement. He wanted anything and everything he could find out on citizenz. He thought that his actoins would benefit the country because he could control all of the people that were against him. I think that people use the ends to justify their means at some point in their life. THey do it probably because they want something really bad and would do anything to have it. I think that this is wrong however, and that there other ways of conquering your goals. - Aly E

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:26 PM  

  • I agree with Arthur on the meaning of this quote. Our examples are some what along the same lines. They are similar because both presidents want/wanted to find out private information about the American citizens, even though many people were and still are against it today. And i agree with arthur completely that there is always another way of getting what you want. - Aly E.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:29 PM  

  • Machiavell's statement that "the ends justify the means" means that it doesn't matter how you did what you did, but as long as the end result is what you intended, everything is fine. Does this mean that if a ruler wants a wealthier population he can kill all that are in poverty? This doesn't seem right at all. It does matter what you do to get what you want, because if you hurt too many people along your way up, what's left to enjoy at the top?

    I don't think that this statement is true. Hitler wanted a more "supreme race", so he killed all the Jewish people living in that area. This isn't right! You can't just kill people to get what you want, not even if that's the quickest way to get it.
    -Rachel W.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:35 PM  

  • I agree with Arthurs thoughts on this subject. Though sometimes rules may have the right intentions, the way that they achieve their goals is sometimes unlawful. Killing thousands of people just so that you are sure that the ones you want to die are dead, is not justifiable. These people have families and contribute to the country's economy. You can't just kill to get what you want.
    -Rachel W.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:40 PM  

  • I really liked the way Chelsea described her point of view because she showed both sides of the "ends justifying the means" issue. I especially agree with her statement about human instinct and how in some desperate situations we will do whatever necessary to survive without thinking of the outcome. But in other cases, we need to remember to think of others along with ourselves and choose a course of action that causes the least or no harm to everyone. -Emma Robbinson

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:20 PM  

  • Many people accociate Machiavelli with the idea that "the ends justify the means" solely because of his harsh, blunt ways of handling his soldiers. He did not care how he treated his soliders, as long as they obeyed him completely. The statement itself means that the end results indicate the actions taken to achieve the goal, regardless of what is being done to achieve it. Take Hitler for example. He wanted power and the control over all people so much, he was blind to what he was doing and the strategies he took to get there. He thought people with blond hair and blue eyes were worthy enough to live... in other words, never the jews (and it's funny how he himself did not have neither blond hair or blue eyes). He was afraid that these jews would interfere with his plan, therefore he slaughted them.. millions of them. Honestly, he did not care that his actions meant that he was eliminating his own race, he only had eyes on that goal, that end result.

    I dont really believe in this statement much. One needs to consider all options to achieve a goal before setting any actions. We need to think about the consequences of those actions as well as others involved. In hitlers case, he did not think of the outcome nor anyone else around him. Actually he didnt even care, he was so blinded by what he wanted the end result to be, he completely pushed away all the negatives against that.
    -Thao ho

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:53 PM  

  • I agree with both arthur and chelsea. Like arthur, i believe that there is definitely always other options to achieve any goals. One must take the time to think of those options instead of rushing into any of them. I think chelsea brough up a great point. We have to consider the consequences and other people, not nesissarily always yourself. Choosing the wiser path that creates the least harm to anyone yet is equally affective is what everyone should aim for.
    -Thao ho

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:58 PM  

  • The famous saying often assocciated with Machiavelli,"the ends justify the means" means that if the end result is desireable, than the way in which that result was acheived are okay. A historical example of this ideal is Malcolm X and his followers. Although they were fighting for a just cause, equal rights, they believed that whatever means neccessary to do so were okay. I do not think that this is an acceptable approach to things. For instance, I believe that killing a criminal in cold blood is not an acceptable way to rid the nation of crimals. Although the end result is one less criminal, killing him is not the answer. --George Montgomery

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:07 PM  

  • I agree with Danielle's statement about the side-efect problems which result from unfair means, and the fact that they just compound the problem of whatever is trying to be solved. Think if the presidential election was decided through a duel. Half of the country would be angry, and the president could not do anything without having it be protested. By using a fair means of election (barring the whole "Al Gore" thing) Americans are able to support the president in at least some of his decisions. --George Montgomery

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:13 PM  

  • The statement simply means that in order to reach a morally right outcome or result, a morally wrong action must be performed. This is assuming that the result is morally right to a greater degree than the action is morally wrong.
    The first example that comes to my mind, after having recently read about it, is Brutus and his assassination of Julius Caesar. He committed an immoral act upon the leader of the Roman people, yet his intentions were (supposedly) for the good of the people themselves. Thus, he committed an immoral action for he believed the results would be morally right; in his mind, the ends justify the means.
    In the case of Brutus killing Caesar with his group of conspirators, I do not believe the ends justified the means; with this, according to Shakespeare, I agree with Mark Antony. Brutus may have cried out, with tears in his eyes, his love for Julius and his reasons for shedding his blood, yet the true reason behind it was obviously envy. He saw how much the people loved him, how ambitious and powerful he would become and saw it as a direct threat to his own potential power as a senator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:20 PM  

  • The statement simply means that in order to reach a morally right outcome or result, a morally wrong action must be performed. This is assuming that the result is morally right to a greater degree than the action is morally wrong.
    The first example that comes to my mind, after having recently read about it, is Brutus and his assassination of Julius Caesar. He committed an immoral act upon the leader of the Roman people, yet his intentions were (supposedly) for the good of the people themselves. Thus, he committed an immoral action for he believed the results would be morally right; in his mind, the ends justify the means.
    In the case of Brutus killing Caesar with his group of conspirators, I do not believe the ends justified the means; with this, according to Shakespeare, I agree with Mark Antony. Brutus may have cried out, with tears in his eyes, his love for Julius and his reasons for shedding his blood, yet the true reason behind it was obviously envy. He saw how much the people loved him, how ambitious and powerful he would become and saw it as a direct threat to his own potential power as a senator. - Damien D

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:20 PM  

  • I agree with Josias that the Vietnam war is a good example of the ends justifying the means, yet i believe in some situations the ends do justify the means. Of course, there are always other ways to solve a problem than to sacrifice something in order to bring more of a good effect, yet in some situations there is no other choice. For example, to stay on the war theme, a airforce pilot of world war I may have steered his fighter aircraft with one of its wings blown off into an enemy camp, sacrificing both him and his copilot, rather than attempting to land it safely for he knew that the odds of surviving were slim. - Damien D

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:42 PM  

  • Machiavelli's principle "the ends justify the means" MEANS that no matter what the cost, no matter what happens, as long as X is the result, then whatever means used to achieve X is fine, because X has been achieved!

    An excellent (if over-used, but appropriate none the less), is Adolf Hitler and his genocide of over 6 million Jews. He was SO focused intent on achieving what he believed to be a "eradication of a parasite" that he didn't realize that they weren't just Jews, they were other HUMAN BEINGS. He was nonetheless unphased, and used any means necessary to achieve his goal of the "ultimate race," and he started first by deciding the Jews of Europe had to go. Not to mention that to achieve the rest of his "ultimate race" glory vision, he had to try and destroy the rest of the world to achieve it. During the 6 years of World War II, which Hitler can be directly blamed for starting, Europe and Western Russia were systematically blown to smithereens by conquest and then liberation all involving frequent, fierce, and often very bloody fighting, artillery barages, and bombing raids. Hitler didn't thankfully achieve his envisioned ends, but he did nearly cripple France, Russian, Germany, and Great Britain, nearly back to the Stone Age. Not to mention that over 26 million people died at the hands of Hitler's Third Reich armies. These means do not justify the ends Adolf Hitler had planned to achieve. -Matthew Goddard

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:41 PM  

  • I have to agree with Damien on his Brutus-killing-Caesar analogy. It is a perfect example of "the ends justify the means." A friend of an influential leader, who had a major following among his native people, killed that same friend. HE and the other conspirators might have thought it was morally right, but a majority of Rome believed him to be WRONG. -Matthew Goddard

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:03 AM  

  • -Corey Lutttrell to the above comment

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:18 AM  

  • People associate Machiavelli's ideas to this principle because of the ideas he expressed in his book. The statement "the ends justify the means" basically means that the results of someone's acts explains or justifies the steps or actions that person took to get to their goal. A popular example of a leader applying this principle was Hitler who did horrible and disastrous things to accomplish his goal. Many times in our society, people do things to accomplish their goals and mostly all the times we can explain their acts by knowing the results of their goals.
    Eguzki Osteikoetxea

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:07 PM  

  • I agree with Josias's example of this principle. The War in Vietnam can demonstrate perfectly the principle “The ends justify the means". In this case Josias took example of a technique used in this war.
    Eguzki Osteikoetxea

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:15 PM  

  • “The ends justify the means” means that the way you go about achieving what you want is irrelevant, as long as you achieve it. One example of this statement is the bomb the Harry Truman approved to be put on Japan during World War II. Though the means meant killing many innocent lives in Japan, in the end it saved many other lives and to the end of World War II. Another example is Adolf Hitler. He felt that it was ok to murder many innocent people that were unpure, in order to purify the world.
    I do not believe the ends justify the means. No one should resort to doing an evil deed in order to achieve something right. It is completely immoral to kill millions of people, like Hilter did for such an inhumane cause. People are blinded by their needs and desires and unable to see all the other options and possibilities available to them or even if it is morally correct. They often take the easy way out of a conflict, by killing people. Not even the bombings in Japan justified the means. Despite the fact many more American lives would have been killed and the war would have been longer had Truman not made the decision he had, it was morally incorrect. Knowing the devistation we had caused Japan we went back to try and rebuild what we had damaged. --Alicia Rinaldi

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:23 PM  

  • I would have to agree with Thao’s point. Even if someone has the greatest intentions, if hurting someone or doing something morally wrong is necessary to achieve it, they’re ignoring all of the options available to them. It is important to take time and consider all of the consequences of your actions to avoid being blinded by your desires. --Alicia Rinaldi

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:14 PM  

  • The "ends justify the means" means that it doesnt matter how you accomplish something, as long as the outcome is favorable.

    A perfect example of this is the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. The result of this was the saving of an estimated one million united states soldiers that it would have taken to conquer the island. In order to stop this, hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were killed in order to preserve the lifes of millions of americans.

    I think that the ends sometimes, but do not always, justify the means. Decisions that take away basic rights and freedoms of people, should never be sacrificed but other desiions, especially those with human life, should be carefully considered. The sacrifice of the few should never overrule the good of the many. These decisions, though difficult to make sometimes do allow the ends to justify the means.
    -Neil B

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:20 PM  

  • Caroline- I do not believe that a certain absolute can be applied to this situation. If a leader has maliscious motives (like Hitler) then yes, the ends do not justify the means. But if someone is trying to save a majority of human life (like President Truman dropping the A-Bomb) i believe that the sacrifice of the minority can justify the outcome. To live by either maxim can result in corruption and each decision made must be individually considered to evaluate the correct choice. This way, a leader can use logic and wisdom in order to make the right moral choice.
    -Neil B

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:26 PM  

  • The statement "the ends justify the means" means that whatever it takes, anything will be done to reach that wanted result in mind.

    Having recently read Julius Caesar, this statement reminds me of his assassination and betrayal of Brutus and Cassius. They thought that Caesar was gaining too much power and maybe by killing him, they'd do everyone a good deed. They were wrong; Anotony ended up showing the people how Caesar was actually a good man with good intentions for his people.

    No, in this case I don't believe the ends justify the means. Brutus was able to turn Caesar's friends against him and they literally backstabbed him. The Senate represent the people; why would the people want to assassinate someone who is a great leader to them? Caesar was no threat to his people. It's obvious that Brutus was jealous of the power that Caesar was gaining and he wanted to put an end to it.

    [Rosyl I.]

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:57 PM  

  • I agree with with Thao. A person is better of planning before setting of to reach that goal in mind. Consequnces and all possible end results should be cinsidered. Brutus' reason for killing Caesar seems personal, and he probably didn't realize how much that would hurt his reputation in the Senate by views of the people.

    [Rosyl I.]

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:02 PM  

  • When it said that "ends justify means" it means that any possible thing should and can be done to reach an end result. An example of this can be seen with Hitler and the Holocaust. He believed in killing tons and tons of people and making them suffer in order to perfect the human race. In this case, the ends did not justify the means. It would be impossible to have a perfect race and killing so many harmless people could never solve anything just to satisfy one person's beliefs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:35 PM  

  • ...that ones from Chelsea Smith

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:37 PM  

  • Neil- After reading what you wrote...
    "Decisions that take away basic rights and freedoms of people, should never be sacrificed but other desiions, especially those with human life, should be carefully considered. The sacrifice of the few should never overrule the good of the many."

    ..I agree with you completely. If the end result sacrifices a few then its ok but if hundreds and hundreds of people have to die then the ends do not justify the means.
    -Chelsea Smith

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:39 PM  

  • Machiavelli's idea of the ends justifying the means meant that it did not matter what laws or rules a person broke to get to their end, as long as that end was just and right. In other words, the end result, justifying the means it took to get there.

    An example of a time when someone thought the ends justified the means was when Harry Truman dropped the atomic bomb. His decision had been well thought out with his reasoning being that they needed to stop the Japanese from attacking and killing more Americans as they had in Pearl Harbor. He dropped it in expectation that they Japanese would surrender, but unbeknown to him was the biological after affects it caused. He killed millions of innocent Japanese to force them into surrender so that the estimated 1 million Americans would be saved.

    I believe that as with most things the ends justifying the means depends on circumstances. There is always a circumstance in which something might seem right. For example, if you went back in time knowing that Hitler would kill all of those people, would you hesitate to kill him? You would be breaking the law by committing murder, but in the end saving so many more. Therefor there are some circumstances when ends do justify means especially when it is for the greater good.
    -Matt Galatowitsch

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:50 PM  

  • The statement "the ends justify the means" means that you could do what ever it takes to accomplish what you need as long as you accomplish what you set out to do. I believe that there are limitations to this because you can't necessarily do whatever it takes if it the end isn’t as important as what you did.

    An example of this is when Hitler. He thought that by creating a single religion it the world that it would be a better place, and he didn’t care about means of getting their and all the lives that he had to go through to reach his goal. He thought in the long run when their was only one religion their would be no more conflicts. However it didn’t work out that way.

    I believe that the ends justify the means makes since a lot of times, like interrogating a terrorist to give up information in order to save lives, but I think that leaders over time have used this to justify things that weren’t worth what it took to get there. So it depends on the circumstances of the situation because the truth of the saying changes.
    -Alex G.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:29 PM  

  • The statement "the ends justify the means" means that you could do what ever it takes to accomplish what you need as long as you accomplish what you set out to do. I believe that there are limitations to this because you can't necessarily do whatever it takes if it the end isn’t as important as what you did.

    An example of this is when Hitler. He thought that by creating a single religion it the world that it would be a better place, and he didn’t care about means of getting their and all the lives that he had to go through to reach his goal. He thought in the long run when their was only one religion their would be no more conflicts. However it didn’t work out that way.

    I believe that the ends justify the means makes since a lot of times, like interrogating a terrorist to give up information in order to save lives, but I think that leaders over time have used this to justify things that weren’t worth what it took to get there. So it depends on the circumstances of the situation because the truth of the saying changes.
    -Alex G.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:29 PM  

  • I agree with what matt g. because he said that the statement’s truth depends on the circumstances or of the event. I think that the Harriet Truman dropping the atomic bomb was a good example, and how the ends would justify the means by killing Hitler before he got power.
    -Alex Goetz

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:44 PM  

  • The concept of "the ends justify the means" is often applied to controversial topics. Even when people acknowledge the fact that the measures they go to in order to accomplish a task can be cruel or unreasonable, their result makes them worthwile. The idea is an attempt to validate the cruelty that some people exert on others, which in some cases can not be excused. Perhaps the greatest non-example of this philosophy was Hitler's attempt to justify mass execution of innocent Jews because he thought that he was accomplishing a greater good by purifying the Aryan race from those who did not fit into his ideal. Though Hitler felt that his actions were justified, I personally would not condone his decision to persecute and murder people as he did, especially because it contradicts with the very beliefs he was trying to establish within society. The very idea of going about acting cruelly in order to accomplish a positive outcome is hypocritical and often does more damage along the way than the good it is intended to bring about.
    -Meghan M.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:40 PM  

  • I agree with what Matt and Alex said about the phrase being circumstantial. By using practices that are considered unethical often times lives can be saved or a society can be changed for the better. The difficulty comes in the discretion of the person who is acting and their ability to make sound judgement and really act in the best interest of the greatest number of people.
    -Meghan M.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:46 PM  

  • The statement "the ends justifies the means" means that you can basically do whatever you want to reach your goal as long as in the end you get the result you want.
    A historical example of this is during the Holocost when Hitler wanted to create a perfect human race even though it meant killing many people that didn't fit into his category of a perfect person.
    I don't want to sound like a bad person or anything but really I guess the ends did somewhat justify the means, because at the time it is what Hitle wanted and what he thought was the right thing to do, even though now we see the Holocost as a big devastation to mankind. -Katie L.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:12 PM  

  • The term "the ends justify the means" implies that any and all measures can be taken if the ending goal is important. Currently in Sudan, the mainly Arab government is supporting a militia to target, rape, and murder the none Arab population. Their justification is that the the non-arab's are rising against the government and that their interests clash with the authorities.
    Priya G

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:14 PM  

  • I do have to say that I agree with Alicia on the fact that Hitler should have looked at all his possible options for solving his problem instead of just killing everyone, but again i must say that at the time his decision was what he thought was the right solution. I'm not saying that i agree with what he did, but the ends justifying the means is doing whatever it takes to accomplish your goal and what YOU think is right -Katie L.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:18 PM  

  • I agree with Natalia's comment that "if the ultimate goal is a noble cause, then no harm should ever be caused to attain it". There have been famous people such as Gandhi who have dedicated their lives to that ideal. I think peaceful measures taken to accomplish a goal tend to be the most affective. Unfortunately this is not always possible in a world as flawed as ours. Their are many ruthless people and governments who would kill anyone who even peacefully opposed them, without a second thought.
    Priya G

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:21 PM  

  • I agree with Meagan about how it is difficult to use the discretion needed before you go too far with what you believe in. When you believe in something strongly it is very easy to get carried away, a true sense of knowing what is right and your conscience will help guide you into knowing the limit.
    -Matt Galatowitsch

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:28 PM  

  • The statement "the ends justify the means" means that the final result of a course of action will justify any procedures to have taken place in order to come to this result. An example of a leader who applied this principle is George W. Bush. Bush believed that following 9/11, our country needed to launch an attack on terrorism. To acomplish this task, the lives of many American soldiers have been lost, innocent civilians have been killed, a lot of money has been spent, and the U.S. has acquired many more enemies. Bush believes that a result of the termination of terrorism will justify all of these sacrifices he's made.
    I do not agree with this principle because the sacrifices made to come to a final result can never be fully justified. Sure, the person who makes the decision believes that they are justifies, but what about those that are negatively affected by these sacrifices? I'm sure George Bush Believes that sending soldiers over to the Middle East is fine, but it's not his child, parent, sibling, or friend that is getting killed. Therefore, this principle is actually rather selfish.
    -Brian C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:28 PM  

  • I agree with Meghan's thoughts about this principle. She explained that even though Hitler though what he was doing was acceptable, she did not condone for what he was doing. I guess the whole idea of the ends justifying the means depends on the point of view. Different people have different ideals, and as a result they agree or disagree with different actions.
    -Brian C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home