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 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: “to move is not to move 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.
« End justifies the means“- it is believed that this phrase became the motto of the Jesuit order and belongs to its organizer Escobar. In addition, this statement became the basis of morality. Very often it is given a negative meaning, incorrectly interpreting that any means can be justified by the goal. But on the way to the goal there may be means that will interfere with the achievement of the goal or be neutral towards it. Thus, the meaning of this phrase can be defined as follows: “An end can justify any means that contribute to its achievement.”
Many see immorality in this statement, although the means themselves cannot be immoral. People who set goals or these goals themselves can be immoral.
In fact, the Jesuit motto was: “By any means necessary.” Christ commanded us the principles of love and goodness, while they acted immorally, discrediting Christianity. The Order disappeared, significantly weakening the strength of people's faith. The end did not justify the means.
We know that the goal and the means are interconnected, but no one can determine the strength and direction of this relationship, as well as what amount of means will lead to achieving the goal. It happens that the means used lead to the opposite goal. You should start by defining your goal. The goal should be the most realistic and achievable. Reality is a necessary quality in order not to follow the path of a false goal.
In addition, the goal and the means must have the same measure. The goal must justify the means spent on it and, accordingly, the means must correspond to the goal. To achieve a goal, a person can use any goals that do not contradict his moral qualities and his conscience. The means can also be any, even human life itself.
Each person has his own values. He will never sacrifice his highest value to achieve his lowest. A society will be stable if the scale of values of its members coincides. In modern society, human life is recognized as the highest value. This means that any moral goal should not endanger people’s lives.
What determines justification for a goal? This can only be the social significance of the goal. Social significance is good and moral principles. This means that the goal justifies everything that adds up to the public good and does not contradict the moral principles accepted in society. The goal must be moral.
If the goal must always be moral, which constitutes the public good, then the means must also be moral. A good goal cannot be achieved by using immoral means.
In war, all means are good. Did you hear? For sure. Have you ever heard the phrase “the ends justify the means”? Of course yes. All these phrases have something in common. Is it that you can use any methods to achieve your goal? But is this true? Is it possible to use this saying as your life credo in all cases?
Looking ahead, a sense of responsibility is important in an adult. Without this quality it is impossible to imagine real life and true determination.
Now we can consider this issue in more detail. He is ticklish, to put it mildly. Let's just say that an adult should have several goals, and one main one. A dominant desire is necessary so that a person does not become scattered. Other goals are important so that the idea does not become overvalued. Then it’s not far from the psychiatric hospital.
The same alcoholism, for example. Yes, addiction can be considered as a special case of overvalued ideas, when one goal occupies not only a dominant, but the main position in a person’s life. This is why alcoholics and drug addicts abandon their loved ones, jobs, and even abandon themselves in the name of alcohol.
An extremely valuable idea is when a person is fixated, for example, on the fact that the floor should be perfectly polished. That is, some little thing takes up a disproportionate amount of space in his head. And, as a result, in the name of the ideal shine of the floor covering, we can completely forget about the sense of responsibility that distinguishes an adult from a child.
If you look at it this way objectively, this is not always the case. Very often, in the name of a good purpose, the slightest dirty tricks can be done. But at the same time, we must take into account that relationships with people will deteriorate for a while or you may even have to go to prison. But this is an unpleasant thing.
Always analyze your actions not only to see how much closer they bring you to your goal, but also what price you will have to pay. If you spend too much of your life's resources on achieving a goal, the result will not be pleasant to you, even if you have been dreaming about it for 20 years.
And in general, refuse to take proverbs in a stereotyped way. They are certainly smart and can be used in many situations. But not everyone. Take a smart, creative approach to your life and you will see how much more interesting it has become to exist in this world. There must be balance in everything, including when achieving a goal.
End justifies the means. Target justifies the means - this phrase has long become a catchphrase. It is believed that the famous Italian Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is the author of the aphorism “The end justifies the means.” This is an erroneous judgment. In fact
different authors have similar statements. This maxim became widely known and acquired a negative connotation, primarily because it was probably used as its motto by the Jesuit order. With these words, the Jesuits Ehekobar and Hermann Busenbaum (1600-1668) explained the morality of their order. They, in turn, borrowed this idea from the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Many thinkers disputed this statement. Thus, the French scientist Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), exposing the resourcefulness of the Jesuits in proving their false ideas, wrote that they correct the depravity of means with the purity of the goal.
And yet, this catchphrase can be interpreted in different ways. Folk wisdom teaches us expediency. So, if you lost a penny (or several small coins) in the dark, then you don’t need to burn a candle to find it, which costs much more. But not everything is so simple. The Japanese have such a parable.
“Once upon a time, an official was crossing a river in the dark. His servant accidentally dropped ten sen (a small coin equal to 1/100 of the price). The coins fell into the water. By order of the official, they immediately hired people, lit torches and began to look for money. An outside observer who witnessed all this said:
- Regretting the sunken hay, the official bought torches and hired people. Much more than ten sen will be spent on this search. What's the point?
After hearing this remark, the official replied:
- Yes, some people think so. Many people are greedy in the name of saving money. But the money spent does not disappear: it continues to travel around the world. Another thing is the ten sen that drowned in the river: if we don’t pick them up now, they will be lost to the world forever.” Target. It is different for everyone, just as everyone finds (or is just looking for) their own meaning in life. A similar image, but with a drachma (a Greek small silver coin, a quarter of a piece of silver) is used in the Gospel of Luke in one of the parables of Jesus Christ. “...what woman, having ten drachmas, if she loses one drachma, does not light a candle and sweep the room and search carefully until she finds it, and when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors and says: rejoice with me: I have found the lost drachma. Thus, I tell you, there is joy among the Angels of God over one sinner who repents.” Jesus Christ told this parable of the lost coin immediately after the parable of the lost sheep. Of course, we are not talking about days and animals. In figurative language, Christ answers his accusers, the Pharisees, who did not communicate with those who, in their opinion, were sinners. Christ conveys to his listeners the truth about the love and mercy of God for all people - and sinners too. Parables about how God himself seeks a sinner, to save him, and what joy there is in heaven for those who repent.
So are the means justified? target? One can also recall one of the most significant and famous Russian writers and thinkers in the world, F.M. Dostoevsky (1821-1881), who wrote in the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” about a child’s tear, about the suffering of a small creature, about the injustice and “nonsense” reigning in the world ”:“...Without her, they say, man could not have stayed on earth, for he would not have known good and evil. Why learn this damn good and evil when it costs so much? Yes, the whole world of knowledge is not worth these tears of a child to the “god”…”Something to think about. Everyone decides for themselves. You just need to remember that nothing is new on earth. Think for yourself, unless, of course, you want them to decide for you.
« End justifies the means“- it is believed that this phrase became the motto of the Jesuit order and belongs to its organizer Escobar. In addition, this statement became the basis of morality. Very often it is given a negative meaning, incorrectly interpreting that any means can be justified by the goal. But on the way to the goal there may be means that will interfere with the achievement of the goal or be neutral towards it. Thus, the meaning of this phrase can be defined as follows: “An end can justify any means that contribute to its achievement.”
Many see immorality in this statement, although the means themselves cannot be immoral. People who set goals or these goals themselves can be immoral.
In fact, the Jesuit motto was: “By any means necessary.” Christ commanded us the principles of love and goodness, while they acted immorally, discrediting Christianity. The Order disappeared, significantly weakening the strength of people's faith. The end did not justify the means.
We know that the goal and the means are interconnected, but no one can determine the strength and direction of this relationship, as well as what amount of means will lead to achieving the goal. It happens that the means used lead to the opposite goal. You should start by defining your goal. The goal should be the most realistic and achievable. Reality is a necessary quality in order not to follow the path of a false goal.
In addition, the goal and the means must have the same measure. The goal must justify the means spent on it and, accordingly, the means must correspond to the goal. To achieve a goal, a person can use any goals that do not contradict his moral qualities and his conscience. The means can also be any, even human life itself.
Each person has his own values. He will never sacrifice his highest value to achieve his lowest. A society will be stable if the scale of values of its members coincides. In modern society, human life is recognized as the highest value. This means that any moral goal should not endanger people’s lives.
What determines justification for a goal? This can only be the social significance of the goal. Social significance is good and moral principles. This means that the goal justifies everything that adds up to the public good and does not contradict the moral principles accepted in society. The goal must be moral.
If the goal must always be moral, which constitutes the public good, then the means must also be moral. A good goal cannot be achieved by using immoral means.
In one of his strictly secret letters to members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), V. I. Lenin called Machiavelli an intelligent writer on state issues who rightly spoke about ways to achieve the intended political goal.[News of the CPSU Central Committee. 1990. No. 4. P. 191-192.].
The essence of Machiavellianism was not quite fairly expressed in the painfully well-known maxim: “the end justifies the means.”
This common formula justifies any crime and, which is sometimes much worse, if we proceed from the logic of Machiavellianism, mistakes. In Soviet Russia it was transformed into the slogan “ the forest is being cut down - the chips are flying" And they drove millions of people into logging fields. " For a bright future“- said the camp organizers. " We are abolishing all previous ideas about morality." “Everything is moral that corresponds to the interests of the working class». « For the victory of communism it is not a pity...».
The Nazis called for " for the sake of great Germany!" But neither communism nor the thousand-year Reich worked out. It was impossible to achieve them by such means.
For good purposes, worthy means are required.
Requirement " " is still the main rhetorical pearl in the ideological arsenal of any Soviet propagandist.
I remember that during the discussion of the cutting economic program, one well-known Russian-speaking Israeli publicist argued that the main task is to carry out an anti-socialist (!) revolution in Israel, and for this all means are good. It doesn’t matter that Israel will be left without libraries, without a welfare and social security system, without pants... The main thing is that it becomes more capitalist. But a state without pants is unlikely to meet high market standards. It will soon turn into a third world country.
Here is Chubais’s rhetoric about ends and means during privatization:
But what does the formula “The end justifies the means” have to do with Machiavelli’s legacy, even with “The Prince,” which is usually deliberately taken out of the context of his work? 
Everyone who has read this political manifesto, and not just those who know its contents from retellings interpreted in different directions, knows that each chapter of “The Sovereign” begins with the formulation of a problem, then there are endless, very often interesting, often very boring piles of historical tales given as examples , and finally the conclusions follow. The logic leading to Machiavelli's conclusions is convincingly simple. Sometimes simple to the point of obscenity.
Arguing on this topic, he states that if we want to achieve such and such a goal, we must use suitable means, for it is useless to pursue a chosen goal using methods that are obviously doomed to failure. On the other hand, if we use certain means, then we will not achieve anything other than such and such a goal. If you want to come to the temple, follow the road leading to the temple, and walking along the tavern street towards the cheerful house - you will find yourself in a completely different, no less interesting place.
Because both goals and means in Machiavelli are strictly dependent on each other.
After all, all people, regardless of whether they are moral or immoral, strive to achieve their goals. Let everyone choose their own path: some act cautiously, others take it impudently; some are cunning, others resort to violence; some are patient, others are determined - all are capable of achieving success despite the fact that the course of action is different.
In a letter to his friend Giovanni Soderini, written in September 1506, first discussing the issue of individual choice of means aimed at obtaining the desired result, Machiavelli writes: “Hannibal and Scipio, both outstanding military leaders, won countless victories: one of them, while in Italy , maintained unity in the troops with cruelty, treachery and impiety, while he so attracted the peoples to himself that they rebelled against the Romans. Another achieved the same thing from the people through constancy, mercy and piety. Lorenzo de' Medici disarmed the people to hold Florence; Messer Giovanni Bentivoglio armed him for the preservation of Bologna; Vitelli at Castello and the Duke of Urbino destroyed fortresses in their dominions to hold them, and Count Francesco at Milan and many others built fortresses for security. Emperor Titus on the day when he was not a benefactor to anyone considered his power to be under threat; another would have seen a threat on the day when he did something nice to someone.”
An effective course of action corresponds to specific circumstances, a given moment. What is good at one time may be bad at another. To the bruised area, you need to apply either a cold compress or a warm one, depending on how much time has passed since the bruise. A style that suits one leader may be disastrous for another. Some situations require cruelty, while others require leniency. One woman is seduced by high poetry, and another by going to a disco. One electorate is turned on by Obama's black skin, another by Palin's Eskimo brutality.
If your goal is to introduce a republic, then you need to do it one way, and if it’s a monarchy, then you need to do it differently. Barak, who wanted to reach a final agreement as quickly as possible, was obliged to use the most severe measures at the beginning of the intifada in order to destroy it in the bud. The failure to crack down in the fall of 2000 led to an explosion of violence.
And although the notorious expression “the end justifies the means” is not found in Machiavelli’s numerous books, it is, in principle, quite applicable to his approach. Since this expression itself (which is considered the essence of “Machiavellianism” and almost the product of the devilish mind) actually does not contain anything seditious. This is a simple tautology. To understand it, you need to ask the obvious question: “What is a remedy?” A means is something that has no independent value. It exists not for itself, but for another - to achieve a certain goal. Only in it, in the goal, does the means have its definition, its truth and value. In the event that it really is a means.
Good intentions
However, when they usually pronounce the maxim “the end justifies the means,” they mean completely different things. They say that for the sake of a good goal it is permissible, even obligatory, to use any means, even criminal ones, to violate any norms, what is sacred to you, therefore, to make crime a means to achieve a good goal. Hence the ancient wisdom about “goodintentions” with which “the road to hell is paved.”
For if in order to carry out these “good intentions” you need hellish means, means that defame the goal, then you cannot go anywhere else.
It should be said here that Machiavelli personally never advocated such an ethical maxim and even spoke out against it. The thinker’s texts do not contain the expression “the end justifies the means”, but there is something else: “I never once wanted to cover up an unseemly act with a plausible pretext or denigrate a laudable deed because it was undertaken for a contrary purpose.”
And if in some cases Machiavelli showed how, with the help of crimes, certain individuals achieved goals (both good and evil), then this does not reflect the author’s personal position.Machiavelli nowhere praises immorality for the sake of immorality, he is not a nihilist; he does not deny universal human values and does not try to destroy them.
The maxim “the end justifies the means” generally has not an ethical, but a methodological meaning. Machiavelli's entire mental work is aimed at establishing which actions lead to which goals, and vice versa: which goals require which means and actions. It is clear that the formula: “for the sake of a good goal, any means are permissible” contradicts the above-mentioned essence of Machiavelli’s teaching, its original attitude and purpose.
It is contradictory, if only because it generally undermines the possibility of theoretical reasoning. This formula simply eliminates the need to establish relationships between certain means and ends.
Why is this so? Yes, because any action has a positive side, which can always be passed off as a goal. Murder is not committed for the sake of murder, but for the sake of justice, for example.
Theft is not committed for the sake of theft, but for the sake of a prosperous life, which in itself is a good goal. We can say that people are always motivated only by good goals. And if so, then the formula “any means are suitable for a good purpose” is an ethical maxim that simply allows you to do whatever you want. 
There are thinkers who undertake to do this, but Machiavelli is not one of them.
Since the author of “The Prince” generally undertakes to distinguish one means from another, he is therefore no longer a supporter of the maxim that allows one to do whatever one wants. Since he needs to distinguish between means, he distinguishes them according to the degree of suitability for the ends. Not good and evil, not true and untrue, but useful and useless, leading to the goal or moving away from it - this is the principle by which distinctions are made.M.A. Yusim, who published the book “Ethics of Machiavelli” in 1990, accurately points out that the merit of the great Florentine “consisted not in liberating “science” from morality, but in liberating it from abstract moralizing,” which is neither science nor has nothing to do with morality.
It was not Machiavelli who invented political murder, betrayal and deception. But before him, they were committed de facto, and they tried not to notice or consider them an exception to the rule. Machiavelli ended hypocrisy. He did not invent or come up with anything, and he himself constantly pointed out that he was not offering a new original political strategy, but rather was only formulating and identifying methods that had been successfully used by many successful statesmen since time immemorial.In fact, Machiavelli constantly illustrates the points of his books, citing numerous impressive examples from ancient history or from contemporary Italian events. But his hero, the great sinner Caesar Borgia, did not learn how to carry out his many crimes from Machiavelli. Quite the contrary, the Florentine philosopher studied with him.
According to his teaching, the use of poison can be good if the matter cannot be resolved peacefully, and only in this way can one get rid of a political enemy. But political poisoning is good only if it succeeds, is carried out subtly enough, no one will understand that it was poisoning and not a heart attack, and even more so if no one recognizes the orderers and executors. And the unsuccessful poisoning of Khaled Mashaal, who on Jordanian territory, on the orders of Benjamin Netanhu, who had read Hamlet, our valiant intelligence officers awkwardly tried to pour poison into his ear in broad daylight, after which they found nothing better than to run towards the Israeli embassy... This use of poison cannot be called good. Israel paid the highest price for Bibi's whim. In exchange for the unkilled Mashaal, the head of Hamas, Sheikh Yassin, was released from prison.
If we adopt the point of viewMachiavelli, then we will no longer have to, depending on right-wing or left-wing, scold Shamir for not wanting any peace negotiations, clinging to the “integrity of Eretz Israel” with his teeth; Rabin for wanting to make genuine peace with Arafat; Perez for his utopian "New Middle East"; Netanyahu for his adherence to the dogmas of the wild, sorry, free market; Baraka for his general desires to achieve peace in one shot.
No, all criticism of our heroes should not focus on goals. We will scold Shamir for the fact that the former leader of Lehi ended his political career in Madrid. We will blame the peacemakers not for trying to bring the warring parties to a messianic “New Middle East”, but for failing to do so. This means that they chose the wrong roads and the wrong fellow travelers. This means that the means did not correspond to the chosen goals.
For the first time I read all the works Machiavelli after the August putsch of 1991. Then it occurred to me that, in fairness, the GKCH members should be judged not for the fact that they intended to take power into their own hands, but for the fact that, while heading key departments, they were unable to do this. For this reason, they are worthy of all condemnation because, having set themselves a “good” (for them certainly good) goal - the salvation of their state, they followed a path that could lead, and therefore led to its instant collapse.
Here, developing Machiavelli, it should also be noted that political wisdom, in contrast to cunning, resourcefulness and intelligence, is reflected in the choice of real goals.The cemeteries of history are littered with the corpses of “realists” of immoral means who set themselves unrealistic goals. Napoleon and Hitler realistically found means to carry out their plans of conquest.
But what good is the realism of the means if the goal is unrealistic and insane? And no political technology will help...
“The end justifies the means” does not belong to Machiavelli. Some write that its author was the Jesuit Escobar, others - that, on the contrary, Protestants who branded the Jesuits with it. But, apparently, it was first pronounced by the Greek playwright Sophocles in the play “Electra” in 409 BC.
Below we provide an example of a final essay for grade 11 on the topic “Goals and Means” with arguments from the literature. After reviewing the example below and the structure of writing the final essay, you will come to the exam with prepared theses and arguments on the topic!
Every active person with an active life position sets goals, the achievement of which forms the meaning of our existence. And the choice of means to implement our plans largely depends on us, which can be moral, humane, or, on the contrary, immoral.
There is a famous expression: “The end justifies the means.” But is this always the case, or are there cases when it is worth realistically assessing the possibilities and consequences of your actions?
Sometimes, in order to achieve a goal, a person recklessly sacrifices his environment, often destroying the most harmless, naive and harmless.
In the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" the main character Rodion Raskolnikov decided to test whether he could step over moral standards and himself. He kills the old pawnbroker, her sister, who is carrying a child under her heart and who became an accidental witness to the murder.
Consequently, you cannot sacrifice not only your life, but also the well-being and comfort of someone in the name of your aspirations.
For the sake of realizing his petty, unworthy goals, an offended person may choose too cruel means, without thinking about the consequences.
For example, Eugene Onegin from the novel by A.S. Pushkin's Onegin, succumbing to a stupid insult, took revenge on his best friend. Lensky invited him to Tatyana’s name day, to whom he had recently denied love. They were seated opposite each other, and Onegin experienced severe discomfort. For this, he began to flirt with Lensky's fiancee. This led to a duel and the death of Vladimir.
This example confirms that before you take any action, no matter how much you want something, no matter what you dream about, you need to think about the consequences. Otherwise, such games can destroy someone's life, lead to loss of self-esteem and, ultimately, to the destruction of one's own personality.
It happens that a person sacrifices himself to achieve a goal.
Thus, in M. Gorky’s story “The Old Woman Izergil,” one of Danko’s heroes tore out his burning heart from his chest in order to illuminate the path for his people and lead them out of the dark forest. But his good intentions were not appreciated, someone simply crushed his heart with their foot.
In the name of good, we can do whatever we want, provided that it does not infringe on the interests of other people.
All we have the right to is to sacrifice ourselves, our means, our well-being in the name of realizing our dreams. This way we won’t harm anyone but ourselves, but we will also, quite possibly, help others.
End justifies the means
Human life is unthinkable without goals, the achievement of which is an important component of progress in development. The goal, in turn, is unthinkable without means. For the number of cases where the goal justifies the means, there is approximately the same number of cases when the goal is not worth the money spent on it. Therefore, the last thing in the world I would like to do is devote this essay to the battle between the arguments for and against, and the announcement of the “winning” statement. I would like to understand, using the simplest examples, what a means should be in order for it to be justified by the end. goal achievement implementation means
In this sense, Machiavelli coined his famous and more political phrase: “The ends justify the means.” Much has already been said and written about this statement. The problem is that Machiavellian statement closes in on itself: what can and what If the end is true, can all means be justified? Empty promises or helpless seriousness serve only to quiet the minds of those in a hurry, whoever understands that he has a generation or more to make real changes knows that it is important that his son, grandson and his next generation experience these changes in a state of affairs.
Any means cannot exist on its own and lead to a goal. The plan drawn up by a person to implement his idea is a whole complex of means that harmonize with each other and lead a person to a given goal. An example could be the opening of a company, which, according to the condition, will definitely bring financial success. The means in this case can be considered the authorized capital to ensure the activities of the company. As already said, this company will bring huge income, which will increase the initially invested funds. Looking narrowly, we can safely say that the end justified the means, but it is worth noting that in a narrow context there is only one thing. Nevertheless, such a conclusion should probably satisfy the owner of the company. If you look more broadly, paying attention to other sides, the conclusion may become completely opposite. For example: the money that helped open the company could have saved a person’s life, but now it’s too late. Or this company ultimately brought more problems than benefits along with financial well-being.
Thinking about a better country means working with meanings that really change the whole system of things so far, and if you can think about it in advance, then finally defeat those who base curly braces to force you to be born in all the times that you really didn't even want the thought.
Until this is done, it will be a dream country for those who have a different dream, not a country that is respected internally and internationally. It is noted with great sadness that an entire culture must be changed. A new education system needs to be rebuilt so that a real country can be built with thinking, critical and newly-discovered people.
It is unlikely that there is any pattern at all that can be used to determine in which cases the end justifies the means and in which it does not. It is not always even possible to clearly formulate for yourself what an “unjustified” remedy is and at what “stage” its dark side appears. I would like to note that an “unjustified” means does not always manifest itself precisely in the process of achieving a goal.
Machiavelli is still misinterpreted to this day. We have been separated for more than four centuries since Niccolò Machiavelli lived. However, a significant number of people invoke the name of this thinker or use terms derived from his speeches. The adjective "Machiavellian" and the noun "Machiavellianism" are present both in scientific discourse, in political debates, and in everyday conversations. However, it is clear that Machiavellianism is associated with the idea of treacherous procedure, a pejorative expression that survives time, spreading from political struggle to disagreements in everyday life.
From all of the above, I can conclude that the means must be appropriate. As for the goal, from the very beginning it is necessary to give it realism, which will distinguish this goal from a dream. Such realism is imparted by precisely formulating this goal and drawing up an adequate plan for achieving it, taking into account all the disadvantages and advantages. The shortcomings of funds and their role in the future should also be taken into account. The means used should not be foreign bodies in the life that a person dreams of after achieving the goal. If a person is ready to approach his goal from different angles, and also on a moral level to support the given goal and the means leading to it, then such a goal may well justify the means.
Analyzing the most famous phrase among men, “ends with justification of the means”, in fact, it should be understood that any relationship is justified depending on its goal. For your goal, you will lay out plans on how to achieve them. This phrase has been translated incorrectly, and in fact it is written that "the means are determined by the ends that each seeks to achieve," or "for the ends that they seek to achieve." This does not mean that all means are legitimate.
In the case of the Roraima government, the means must be analyzed from the first actions of this electoral year. Let's talk about the State Department of Labor and Social Security, for example. During the elections, gubernatorial candidates will need the Setrabs to be camouflaged and disguised in social activities in the municipalities. This is a "remedy" to sensitize people so that they need the government to get a clean mosquito net and a basic food basket.
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?
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 a warning to others, they are deprived of their lives.
In fact, it seems that there is only this in this world to represent the state here in Roraima. Well, a lot of action is already happening and hundreds of nets and baskets are being distributed to parents along with the toys of small children during the trawling that the government is carrying out in all the municipalities of Roraima.
This does not mean that his actions are wrong. In the end, he believes that the result will be positive with such actions that he considers appreciated during this period. Which also doesn't mean it will happen. Anhyita has an empire, we can't deny. He has subordinates and sycophants who act according to his orders since he inherited power. And as the old popular saying goes: “a dead king has installed a king.”
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.
But there are still many things to analyze until we reach the end in October, when we will know whether the means necessary to maintain the power of the king and his commanders are worth using, and if he will indeed triumph. For, as Machiavelli states: You cannot name “value” by betraying your friends, who do not have the given word, mercilessly. This attitude may lead to the conquest of an empire, but not to glory.
The son of Pope Alexander the 6th, Cesar Borgia named Remirro De Orco ruler of the province of Romagna. His mission was to calm the region. But the governor used brutal methods to control his temper - with the consent of his boss. After completing the mission, Borgia thought that the population would turn against De Orco and at the table against him. It was decided to foresee: Borgia killed the governor and exposed his body, broken into two parts in the middle of the square.
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 justifies 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
The population was surprised by the ambiguous message. With a gesture, Borgia showed that he did not agree with De Orco's actions. At the same time, it was extremely brutal, which intimidated any opposition to it. He entered the history that the classic author feared and admired.
Florentino Niccolò Machiavelli through Borgia as a virtuous leader. The nobleman's attitude showed that he made no effort to maintain peace. For Machiavelli this was good, even if it cost several lives. At a time when there was no democracy, stability was a more important value. Revolution in the political thought of the century. Machiavelli used his own experience as a diplomat and political advisor to construct the Lenten treaty, about a hundred pages in which pragmatism prevails over morality.
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 his ideals have been betrayed. 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.
The text is so black and white that Machiavelli's sincerity still evokes chills to this day. It is also one of the most cited works in political science. Machiavellian has become an adjective used as a synonym for cruelty and coldness. Admirers of the work complain of a negative reading of the philosopher. Machiavelli was precise in his realistic analysis of the political world, where nothing is what it seems, and was the first to use ethical discussion with practical examples.
While Michelangelo sculpted David and Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, Machiavelli showed a different side of Renaissance Italy, a powerful and unstable region. Italy was divided into provinces that used each other. It is in this context that the thinker understands the idea of political stability, which does not come from God or from political systems, but from rulers who know how to remain in power in a world of uncertainty. To this end, the thinker extolled two qualities worthy of a leader: virtue, a mixture of firmness and pragmatism, luck or good fortune.
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.”
English historian Quentin Skinner says that Virtue can be the name of any quality that is effective, in a corrupt and bankrupt world, in maintaining a leader in power. That is, it is not a closed concept. But it can also be the opposite of them.
For the philosopher, the sovereign must have the freedom to act as he sees fit to ensure the safety and peace of the population. Don't turn away from good, but know how to use evil if necessary. Machiavelli discovered the idea of political values measured by practice and social utility, a discourse that could be appropriate for rulers who steal but do. The ends justify the means, a phrase that does not appear in the book and which was never written by Machiavelli, has become the best summary of his thought.
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.
But only Machiavelli had the courage to admit that this is how it works. The philosopher had a short life. He lived for 52 years, changing positions at the top of the Florentine principality. But he lost his job when the powerful Medici family regained power. Prepared to resume his career as chancellor, he wrote to Lorenzo de' Medici as a treat, but the statesman did not understand the message, and Machiavelli spent his last years in this area.
This formula can be enlightened by knowledge of the geopolitics of the population. We will look at some elements of this discipline and then understand the meaning of the question. Let us consider the problem of social coherence in the state. In fact, there never exists a country whose population can be considered completely homogeneous from a cultural point of view. Any country may include among its inhabitants inhabitants who may have certain specific cultural referents different from those of the majority of the population, such as language, and therefore constitute a minority group.
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 the 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.
Given the existence of one or more groups of people present in the territory over which state sovereignty is exercised, any power has two possible strategies: inclusion and ostracism. Let us first analyze the relation of ostracism before examining the modes of inclusion that enter into the logic of “living together.” From refusal to recognize a minority group to the means used. An ostracized attitude of authority towards a minority group can lead to very different behavior.
Failure to recognize the reality of the existence of a minority group can lead to political decisions that have a coercive effect on the population and are aimed at suppressing, as far as possible, the behavior or presence of minorities in the territory. Sometimes it is necessary to organize forced movements within a country because a minority group is considered difficult to control by the territory in which it lives. In other cases, the government politically excludes a minority group, pushing it to emigrate.
