Means to an End
The end justifies the means, many of us have an issue with this statement. Taken literally to me, the phrase states whatever the cost, moral or immoral, legal or illegal, I will reach this goal. Is a person a zealot to ignore all else to this singular focus; and the devout beliefs in the rightness of the cause? As in war, do you shoot or die, does your life end here, or do you take the shot? Breathe in...breathe out...breathe in, hold it. Finger on the trigger, eye on the target, they are just targets, service the target, take the shot. I do believe the end does justify the means. In the following paragraphs proof is provided that will vanquish any doubt. At the end of WWII British soldiers helped liberate many Jewish prisoners from concentration camps. Later the rescued may have been their enemy, over land, homeland. When is it acceptable to use the bomb? Did the end justify the means? President Truman said it did when he made the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Finally, a biblical reference, Joshua and the Israelites destroying Canaan, totally ...
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
“I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
In the article “The Penalty of Death”, written by H. L. Mencken, utilitarian principles are used to cover up for a system that wants results. All of the reasons that Mencken gives as justifications do not give concrete evidence of why the death penalty should continue as a means of punishment. The article states, “Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society...” This statement alone demonstrates how he believes the death penalty brings justice and satisfaction to the people. Mencken creates the points he makes in his article in order to give society a way to make the death penalty seem less intrusive on moral principles and more of a necessary act.
Since 1973 there have been a total number of one-hundred and fifty-one death row executions. (10 Reasons…, 1). Out of all of these executions only eighteen of them have ever had any further evidence to show that the guilty party was innocent. Many people argue that this is enough to make it to where the death penalty should not be used. However, that leaves one-hundred and thirty-three death row executions that have not been proven to have been the wrong person. If each individual that is sentenced to be executed has killed only one person than that is one-hundred and thirty-three people that have been killed. The fact remains that if there were no death penalty executions then there would be one-hundred and fifty-one people that have not been justified by their death. Although having eighteen innocent people put to death because they were wrongfully accused is a terrible thing, it does not even begin to oppose the one-hundred and fifty-one people that were killed because of the hate and fear that causes a person to bring this harm upon other people. Also many of these people have affected more than just one person. They may have killed or harmed multiple people. The people who oppose this are simply stating that the murderers’ lives are worth more than the people that they killed.
Going along the ultimate end in an accordance to the greatest happiness principle is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison. This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality. Which by definition are rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of existing, described to the greatest extent possible, and secured to all mankind and to nature.
I argue that it is in fact morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many, I say this because the survival of the human race is now, and has always been the purpose of mankind on earth, and morality itself is constructed around achieving that goal. Human philosophy is always centered around the survival and happiness of humanity. Even religious philosophy is centered around those eventual goals. Arguments arise in the approach to achieving the goal, not the stated goal of happiness and survival of our species itself.
I suppose it is the context of the war that determines it was just or unjust. The war against cancer is a strive for the greater good… but then again one still must kill cancer cells in order to end the terror that has been caused so maybe that would still be considered unjust if you think about it that way… but I would call that over analyzing. In the long run a just war can happen by fighting for the greater good rather than getting there through the means of hurting, and terrorizing others. It seems a little bit unrealistic but if you want a true solution on how to truly conduct war justly, I would say don’t conduct one at all. War doesn’t and shouldn’t have to be inevitable but through years and years of creating a culture of killing people it seems that it has become such. If the world could break from this barbaric clutch, then we wouldn’t have to think about the issue of conducting a just war at
The capture and trial of Adolf Eichmann, which evoked legal and moral controversy across all nations, ended in his hanging over four decades ago. The verdict dealing with Eichmann's involvement with the Final Solution has never been in question; this aspect was an open-and-shut case which was put to death with Eichmann in 1962. The deliberation surrounding the issues of Eichmann's motives, however, are still in question, bringing forth in-depth analyses of the aspects of evil.
The ultimate end is what the masses strive for. Aristotle proposes that this universal good be thoroughly understood before continuing. All actions are to be built upon another in order to achieve this good; an end that is chosen for the sake of itself, we “choose [happiness] for its...
In “War and Massacre” by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good.
World War II, which took place from 1939 until 1945, is the most destructive war in terms of destruction and lives lost in all history. At the end of World War II, America made the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war quickly, and this has been a very controversial issue ever since. After the fact, many questioned the decision made by American military leaders, wondering if they had well enough considered the Nuclear Era they would bring about by dropping the atomic bombs. In discussions of dropping the atomic bombs to end World War II, one controversial issue has been whether the United States was morally justified, and there are two basic schools of thoughts in this debate. On the one hand, some argue that dropping the bombs on cities, therefore targeting civilians, makes the bombs morally wrong. On the other hand, some contend that dropping the bombs to end the war quickly saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and therefore was morally justified. My own view is that dropping the bombs was the best decision for America to make with the information that they had at that time and the enormous number of lives that were saved.
In order for a war to be just it must follow the Just War Doctrine/Theory. There are two principles to the just war theory. These two principles are “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello.” Jus ad Bellum is Latin for the “right to war.” This principle is a set of criteria that is to be consulted before engaging in war. The following criterion determines whether or not a war is just. Proper Authority and public declaration is the idea that a war is only just if waged by a legitimate authority. Just cause or right intention, is that the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests but rather to re-establish peace. Probability of success is that there must be the belief that the war will be successful if they enter. This involves weighing the costs and benefits of waging war and emphasizes human life and economic resources. Proportionality, the violence used in war must be proportional to the attack suffered. The last criterion is that war must be waged only as a las...
... of whether violence can be considered moral to achieve a just end is difficult to answer. Jurisprudence is called into question, as one tries to justify violent means to an end.
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.
“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?