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...
“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.
Power is both a mental and physical characteristic that people define through knowledge, strength, and money. People who embody these traits are exceedingly hard to come by and almost cease to exist. In today’s age it is a demanding task to find a person who has absolutely mastered a specific trade. For an individual to become powerful they must acquire a vast amount of knowledge in that subject area to convince others and prove their arguments factual. A knowledgeable being will have a sharp edge over competitors allowing them to rise to the top, leaving opponents in the dust. People who have obtained a substantial amount of strength are more likely to be successful when attempting tasks and missions. An individual who has strength has more stability, courage, and fortitude. A person who displays these attributes has what it takes to control large amounts of people as well as face those people in a devastating situation. In this society it is impossible to gain access to power without one very valuable resource. Most people spend a rather large portion of their day either carrying, counting, or spending this power-granting asset. With money an individual can purchase anything they desire and prove status to other lowlife humans. The more money a person has, the more materialistic goods they can possess. Many people who have very large quantities of...
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,
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).
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
The 21st Century has marked an era for the Just war principle. The theory of Justice and warfare has enabled for p...
...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.
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.
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.
Power is a very important factor of everyday life. Throughout the ages, from kings to presidents, and even before that mankind has always b...
“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?
Power is the ability to control or influence others, especially socially or politically. We often hear of the horror stories, in which corrupt dictators with too much power kill innocent citizens, eliminate all competition, and hurt others for personal gain. Power itself is not necessarily the bad thing here; it comes as an instinctive need to humans, rooted in the primal purpose of survival (Anchor text). The abuse of power leads to corruption. Power is an unstable force that can have positive or negative outcomes, depending on why it was sought and the attitude of those on the receiving end of the control.