The end does not justify the means examples. The end justifies the means (terrorism). Does the end always not justify the means?

End justifies the means- thought attributed to the English scientist Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): “Since he who is denied the right to use the necessary means is also useless the right to strive for the goal, it follows that since everyone has the right to self-preservation, then everyone has the right to use all means and perform every act, without which he is not able to save yourself"

. (Essay “About a Citizen”); and to the German Jesuit theologian Hermann Busenbaum (1600-1668): “Whoever is permitted the goal, the means are permitted”(essay “Fundamentals of Moral Theology”); and the French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): “we correct the depravity of the means with the purity of the end”(essay “Letters to a provincial”).

However, it seems that he was the first to speak out about the relationship between the goal and the means leading to it (End justifies the means) Florentine politician Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1532): “let a politician be blamed for his actions as long as the results justify him, and he will always be justified if the results are good”(treatise “The Sovereign”)
Nicolo Machiavelli, having extensive experience in communication, was very skeptical about people
- “People would rather forgive the death of a father than the loss of property”
- “It can be said about people in general that they are ungrateful and fickle, prone to hypocrisy and deceit, that they are scared away by danger and attracted by profit.”
- “People are ungrateful, self-willed, fussy in their desire to avoid danger”
Therefore, he believed, the only way to curb human vices was a strong state:
« The sovereign should not be afraid of being branded as treacherous in the name of unifying the lands subject to him, for he will be much more merciful than those who, out of mercy, allow unrest to occur.”. Here's the idea "end justifies the means"(the actions of a politician are justified by the results) from the same “opera”
- “It is much safer to instill fear than to instill love, if you have to make a choice.”
- “He who would always profess faith in goodness will inevitably perish among so many people alien to goodness.”
- “Do not deviate from good, if possible, but be able to take the path of evil, if necessary”

Nicolo Machiavelli. Biography, briefly

A great Italian politician, diplomat of the Florentine Republic, writer, thinker, author of works on public administration, several plays, two poems, and a novel. Born in Florence into the family of a lawyer. He graduated from the city school, but not the university (there were no funds), served the Republic for 14 years as an envoy and diplomat, with the collapse of the republican system he found himself in disgrace, lived on his estate for 14 years, wrote books. Died at age 58

1469, May 3 - born
1498, February 18 - the competition for the post of Secretary of the Second Chancellery of the Republic (foreign affairs) failed
1498, June 18 - still took this position
1499, March - successful completion of a diplomatic mission in Piombino, a city-state in Tuscany
1499, July - successful completion of a diplomatic mission to conclude an alliance with the city of Forli
1500, July - “business trip” to Paris to the court of Louis XII
1501 - envoy to Pistoia, Siena, Cascina
1502, June 24 - arrived in Urbino to Duke Cesare Borgia as a representative of Florence
1502, September - became an adviser to the head of Florence, the second Chancellor of the Republic
1502 - married Marietta Corsini
1503 - became a father for the first time (had four children in total)
1503 - again at the Borgia court. This time in Perugia
1504 - second trip to France
1505 - envoy to Perugia, Siena
1506 - representative of the Republic in Rome at the court of Pope Julius II
1507 - Ambassador of the Republic to the court of Maximilian, then King of Germany, and from 1508 - Holy Roman Emperor
1509 - Envoy of the Republic in Mantua and Verona
1510 - two trips to Paris
1511, November - observer of the events of the Pisa Church Council, organized by Louis XII against Julius II
1512, September 1 - Florence is captured by Medici troops, the republic falls. Machiavelli lost his position and was expelled from the city
1513, March - on charges of participating in an anti-state coup, arrested, thrown into prison, tortured
1513, April - released from prison under amnesty
1513 - wrote his most famous book, “The Prince”
1519 - “Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livy”
1520, November - received the position of historiographer of Florence
1525 - “History of Florence”
1527, May 4 - the republic is restored in Florence
1527, May 10 - failed to obtain the post of Chancellor of the Florentine Republic
1527, June 21 - death

We often hear this phrase, and we mainly encounter what it means in the works of classics and contemporaries. Does the end justify the means? A question that can leave hundreds of people scratching their heads. Pragmatists will no doubt answer “yes,” but is it morally possible to say so?

Where did the saying come from?

If the end justifies the means, how can we understand which goal is truly good and worthy of sacrifice? A good example in modern life is the death penalty. On the one hand, such punishment is mainly awarded to people who have committed serious crimes, and in order to prevent their repetition and as an edification to others, they are deprived of their lives.

But who has the right to decide that a person is guilty? Is it worth creating professional killers? And if a person was convicted wrongly, who will be responsible for the execution of an innocent person?

That is, interest in such a topic is quite justified. And it is logical that, together with modern technologies and the desire to still solve this eternal question, there arises a need to find out who originally thought that this was permissible? Why did a person decide to hide behind lofty goals to justify his action? But even when searching for information, it is difficult to understand who actually is the author of this slogan.

Searching for the truth

Books are considered one of the most reliable sources of information today. It is from there that people get information, study history from it and, perhaps, find unique facts. But on the topic of the expression “The means justify the end” it is difficult to find a specific answer there. This is because the saying has been around for many years and has been used and paraphrased by many famous thinkers and philosophers. Some agreed, some refuted, but in the end it became not so easy to find the author. Main candidates for authorship: Machiavelli, Jesuit Ignatius of Loyola, theologian Hermann Busenbaum and philosopher

Is it really Machiavelli?

When people begin to wonder: “The end justifies the means... Someone’s palm is most often given to the Italian historical figure and thinker of the 15th-16th centuries

He is the author of the famous treatise “The Sovereign,” which can safely be called a textbook for a good politician, especially of those times. Despite the fact that centuries have passed since his activities, some of his thoughts can still be considered relevant. But there is no such expression in his works. His views can to some extent be summarized by this phrase, but in a different sense. Machiavelli's philosophy is based on making the enemy believe that he has betrayed his ideals. To throw dust in the eyes and take them by surprise, but not to abandon them for the sake of “higher goals”. His views do not imply action against one's ideals, where the means justify the end, but a political game.

Jesuit motto

Of course, Ignatius of Loyola is considered the next author of the quotation after Machiavelli. But this is again completely wrong. You can’t just pass the championship from hand to hand. Each of the listed thinkers’ views can be reflected in this phrase, paraphrased, but with the same essence.

But this only shows that the original source was completely different, because over time, interest in the phrase only grows. Since the means justify the end, does this have anything to do with the Jesuits? Yes. If you do a little research, it becomes obvious that Escobar y Mendoza was the first to formulate the statement. Like Loyola, he is also a Jesuit, and quite famous. Thanks to him, some believe that the phrase was the motto of the order. But in fact, after the Pope condemned Escobar’s views, they completely abandoned him, and the Jesuit slogan itself sounds like this: “To the greater glory of God.”

Dilemma in modern times

In our era of tolerance and humanism (more precisely, the pursuit of such ideals), is it possible to find an opinion among the highest ranks that the end justifies the means? There are numerous examples, but they are rather based on subjective opinion, because none of the politicians would dare to say such a phrase directly. On the other hand, we are left with what has always been a tool for self-education. Books and their authors that, through writing, show the flaws of human society. Now, however, the area of influence is not limited to books alone.

Characters in books, films, computer games and other modern works many times have to make choices and decide whether the means justify the ends or not. The choice is made between the greater and the lesser evil in the name of the common good. For example, the hero has to decide: is it worth sacrificing the village in order to have time to prepare the castle for a siege? Or is it better to try to save the village and hope that the current forces are enough without fortifications? In any case, it seems that there is no third option. But if ideals are betrayed, and the hero begins to decide who is worthy of living and who is not, can one really say that his world will be saved? Of course, when you read a story and delve into the essence, it may also seem that there is no other way. But at the end, the author usually shows the price of “good intentions” and gives the reader a chance to think about the possibility of avoiding a bitter end. Sometimes it's easier to close your eyes and convince yourself that you're doing the right thing. But the simplest path is not always the right one.

In the course of any polemic/discussion, there will certainly be some moralist who wants to show off his wit by throwing various “eternal questions”, quotes, winged and wingless expressions onto the fan. And it should be noted that the thesis “the end justifies the means” is one of the most beloved by these expert demagogues. This leads to the fact that the discussion of a specific topic is cluttered with the husk of pseudo-wisdom, which adds nothing of substance, but only provokes unnecessary, empty, fruitless disputes.

Therefore, in order not to be driven into a corner with noodles on their ears, it is very useful for any debater, talker, and even unskilled mental worker to sort out all the tricky questions in advance, and to give hypocrites/demagogues an immediate and specific punishment.

“The end justifies the means” is an extremely simplified, formalized, psycho-emotional formula that defines the relationship between the goal, means and morality. Moreover, the object of evaluation is both the goal and the means.

Suckling this triangle from all sides and corners, pretenders to the “conscience of the people” proceed from several simple theses/postulates.
Good cannot be achieved through evil.
A good goal can be achieved only by good methods.
The goal must be moral.
Good goals are not achieved through bad means.
Only morality determines whether the end justifies the means or not.
Immoral ways of achieving goals cannot be justified.
Etc.
However, upon closer examination, these arguments turn out to be extremely simplified and ambiguous, and therefore unconvincing and hypocritical.

But because there is no abstract goal, no abstract means, no abstract justice, no abstract morality, no abstract “good.” The goal, means and morality are always specific. Therefore, discussing this topic in isolation from the real context is as absurd as the disputes of medieval scholastics about how many devils could fit on the point of a needle.

Let's say a surgeon cuts a person, removing a tumor from his body. What is he doing? Good or evil? The answer is obvious to us. It is with the help of evil that the doctor does good. However, in the recent past, all kinds of anatomical theaters were considered an outrage against God’s creation and other “immoral blasphemy.”
And vice versa, with the help of good you can create evil. It is on this occasion that it is said: “The path to hell is paved with good intentions” and “We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.” There are many similar examples.

However, there are two more characteristics, without taking into account which the problem remains limited and speculative. They are conditions (external environment) and our emotional involvement in the situation. And emotions, unlike morality, are determined by the subconscious, over which our mind/rationality has no power. And even more so, this is true for affects that are not controllable by definition. (Although, of course, there are exceptions to everything. For example, shame is an emotion associated with a person’s social behavior and his morality, and not with his subconscious)
The characteristics of individual morality are limited by our emotions, fortitude and available resources. It is these factors that determine what the decision will be.

You will always have the morality that your strength allows you to have. (F. Nietzsche)

Our strength will allow us to overcome fear, resist temptation, endure pain, come to terms with loss, make sacrifices, etc. there will be one solution. If they don't allow it, something else will happen. There is no particular point in condemning a person after this for cowardice, immorality and other sins. No one can jump above their own head. And in the case where the goal is survival, it is unlikely that anyone will think long about means, morality, ethics and other etiquettes. And even more so, about how his actions will be regarded by moralists.

Therefore, the problem under discussion can be correctly posed (and solved) only in the form of an equation of five parameters: emotions, goal, conditions, means, morality. And it is no coincidence that morality is placed at the end of the list, since “its word is the last.”

However, there is one more catch! The goal is not the result! A goal is a plan, an intention. And they are not judged for intentions, they are judged for deeds. And while there are no deeds, you cannot attach a goal to the deed. What is Manilov from “Dead Souls” famous for? There is a sea of ideas and goals, but no actions. So, the above statement of the problem is legally illiterate. At least at the planning stage.

The outcome justifies the action. (Ovid)

Oh how! Not a goal, but a result! The end justifies the means. Themistocles surrendered Athens to Xerxes, Kutuzov surrendered Moscow to Napoleon. And until the outcome of those wars came, it was impossible to justify the surrender of the capital, no matter what the motivation was.

The “means-end” problem is tightly linked to another “eternal problem” - “winners are not judged.” Having started to discuss it, we return again to morality and get hung up until we collapse from fatigue.

To complete the picture, it should be mentioned that the chatter of moralizers about morality and generosity lasts only until the moment they themselves find themselves involved in a specific negative situation. As soon as misfortunes touch them personally, they shout “crucify” the loudest and resort to the most cruel and immoral methods of retribution. Where have their “political correctness” and “tolerance” gone! (sic!) It is easy to have high morals while being outside the context of reality. People have an intelligible catchphrase about this: “tugging is not moving bags.”

Some understand the statement in question only in terms of “the goal must justify the funds spent on it” (“the game is not worth the candle,” “the game is not worth the candle,” etc.) Such an accounting interpretation has nothing to do with morality.

Total!

1. Attempting to solve problems with abstract reasoning is a waste of time. Analysis of the goal-means relationship makes sense only in the context of a specific situation. Everything is good, everything is evil, the difference is in the details. In which, as we know, the devil hides. Therefore, only after a comprehensive consideration of all the details by a special body called the “Supreme Court” can an assessment be made: punishment, acquittal, or just public condemnation.

2. Don’t be embarrassed by clever people who try to give a negative assessment of your actions, limit your resources, drive you into the space of incomprehensible alternatives, and also introduce pseudo-problems and stereotypes into your bright head. Don't let moralistic demagogues and other trolls confuse you. Give them a beating in the most decisive and harsh form.

3. Whether the end justifies the means is subject to careful calculation in each specific case and depends entirely on the design of the weighing scales. Look what your personal scales show and do what your conscience tells you.

Notes

1. Anyone who is interested in world history knows that means have almost always been determined not by morality, but by necessity. And this is the main thing you need to know on this topic.
2. The statement in question is a special case of a more general problem - the problem of choice, which the blog writer will write about someday.
3. As for the authorship of this maxim, it was a proverb back in Ancient Rome - Finis sanctificat media. So we shouldn’t assume that Machiavelli or any Hollywood action hero thought of it first.

The statement “the end justifies the means” is quite ambiguous, and, like many other weighty issues, it forces us to engage in deep speculation.

Throughout his life, a person is in constant motion, he always has a goal. For some reason many people call this “the meaning of life.” Agree, it would be strange to call a good car, house, business, and other material things the meaning of existence. And in each of us, when trying to achieve what we want, the question arises about the means necessary in this difficult path.

Should you always give yourself completely to your dreams and aspirations? Man, as has already been said, is in perpetual motion, and, at the same time, man is constantly growing and developing. Those goals for which just yesterday we were ready to go over our heads and sacrifice everything, today already seem like something ridiculous and childish. It's unclear why we were so stupid?

The work of F.M. comes to mind. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment", where the main character, Rodion Raskolnikov, comes to the idea that through evil actions, crimes, one can come to the truth of virtue and universal happiness. That is, according to the hero, in pursuit of something noble, one can commit evil acts, any means are justified.

Raskolnikov's absurd theory was that there are only two types of people in the world: worthy and unworthy. And if you destroy the unworthy, then you can create that same ideal world of harmony and happiness. But, as we know, the murder brings into Rodion’s head the realization that his ideas are inhumane, and with his actions he crossed a certain line, and found himself on a par with such notorious scoundrels as Svidrigailov. Svidrigailov is a vile, dishonest person, he does not disdain any means to achieve his goals. Soon he commits suicide, Raskolnikov repents of his sins, and the reader understands that goals do not always justify the means of achieving them.

As another example, we can also recall the novel by N.V. Gogol "Dead Souls". The main character of the work, Chichikov, wants to achieve wealth and high status in society. To achieve his goal, Chichikov buys “dead souls” from the landowners, after which he receives a large loan against them. The hero resorts to various means, but never stoops to things that disgust him. He doesn't act like the smug nobles he approaches with his deal. We don’t know how the novel ended, the second part disappeared forever in the fire, but we still want to hope that Chichikov was able to achieve his goal. In this case, we see that the hero’s goal justifies the investment.

Everyone has dreams, aspirations, and each of us strives to fulfill them. But at some point, it’s worth stopping and asking yourself: “Am I doing everything right? Maybe we should give up on realizing our goals if they require such sacrifices?” If every person asked themselves such simple questions, then perhaps the world would become a little less bad that surrounds us.

Essay No. 2

Common statements, opinions and expressions are, as a rule, only fragments of something original and genuine. Of course, people often learn what is simplest and most understandable, and not everyone has a more or less exalted nature. Therefore, many people tend to assimilate and broadcast the simplest things almost thoughtlessly.

For example, there is a saying: the end justifies the means. Its essence is to be able to justify any actions with a specific purpose.

For example, in order to build magnificent railways on Russian territory, you need to spend a certain number of human lives, dooming many people to suffering and death in terrible conditions. Although what is human life in comparison with the satisfied face of a worker who, devouring chicken with boiled eggs, goes on vacation to Anapa along this road. After all, you need to fight for human happiness, and such an opportunity to travel along this road on vacation for a worker is happiness, so why shouldn’t other workers and prisoners fertilize the earth for his sake, for his opportunity to flirt with conductors and enjoy cold beer in a classic train cup holder?

The end justifies the means.. In fact, this statement often has a continuation and is written as: the end justifies the means, if the goal is the salvation of the soul.

This expression takes on religious connotations, but there is also room for different interpretations. For example, it is the faint-hearted people who will be happy to use it to actually save their own bodies and similar values. Probably, those who really care about saving the soul will perceive this expression more deeply and understand by means, for the most part, various ways of working on oneself and purifying the very soul that is supposed to be saved.

The phrase is often prescribed to the Jesuits, but from the authors of this community there are only slightly different phrases about determining the means depending on the goal. It talks about how a positive goal makes all means good and vice versa, that is, we are talking about the internal component of any activity.

For example, if people are simply sent to a concentration camp to be mocked, then such means are bad. If people are sent to a concentration camp to build a railway, then such means are good. After all, convicts are tortured not for fun, but for the sake of the country, for the sake of the happiness of other people.

End justifies the means- an old expression that justifies any means to achieve a goal.

The expression is one of the mottos of the Jesuit Order and was formulated by the Jesuit Escobar y Mendoza (Antonio Escobar y Mendoza, 1589 - 1669): Finis sanctifcat media (Finis sanctified media, lat.).

The expression is the basis of Jesuit morality and was included in the book “The Book of Moral Theology” (lat. Liber theologiae moralis, 1644). For example, the Jesuit Father Hermann Busenbaum (English: Hermann Busenbaum (Busembaum); 1600 - 1668) wrote in his essay “Fundamentals of Moral Theology” (1645):

“To whom the end is permitted, the means are also permitted.”

It is possible that this idea was borrowed by the Jesuits from the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679), who wrote in his book “On the Citizen” (1642):

“Since he who is denied the right to use the necessary means is also useless the right to strive for the goal, it follows that since everyone has the right to self-preservation, then everyone has the right to use all means and perform every act, without which he is not able to protect yourself."

The French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal in his “Letters to a Provincial” put the words into the mouth of the Jesuit:

“We correct the depravity of means with purity of purpose.”

Sometimes the phrase “The end justifies the means” is mistakenly attributed to the Italian thinker, historian and statesman Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527).

The phrase “The end justifies the means” was often used by the Russian revolutionary Sergei Gennadievich Nechaev (1847 - 1882), which contributed to its spread in Russia.

The phrase "The end justifies the means" in foreign languages:

Finis sanctiflcat media (lat.)

The end justifies the means (English).

Il fine giustifica i mezzi (Italian)

La fin justifie les moyens (French)

El fin justifica los medios (Spanish)

Examples

(1844 - 1927)

“Memories of the case of Vera Zasulich” (1904 - 1906) - From the speech of the Prosecutor, Comrade Prosecutor K.I. Kessel:

“Therefore, only one thing remains to be assumed: it means, in Zasulich’s opinion, end justifies the means, the flag covers the cargo."

(1818 - 1883)

"Correspondence", 10:

"Some Jesuits claim that every means is good as long as one achieves the goal. Not true! Not true! With feet defiled by the mud of the road, it is unworthy to enter a clean temple."

(1823 - 1886)

“Courage is born in struggle”:

“And everywhere and everywhere the only aspirations that guided the young man of the bourgeoisie were money, the thirst for power as a means of exploitation, for profit. And in the struggle for this, all means were good. Meanness, betrayal, and where there was a knife - everything was put to use . The end justified the means."

(1860 - 1904)

"" (1885) - one of the actors who found a lot of money together talks about killing his friends in order to take possession of the entire amount:

“I’ll take it and put poison in vodka. They will die, but in Kostroma there will be a theater like nothing Russia has ever known. Someone, I think it was McMahon, said that end justifies the means, and McMahon was a great man."