How you go about doing something is as important as what you end up doing. If you use illegal mean to accomplish a legal and even desirable result, the good result does not make the bad means you used justifiable. The hypothetical nature of the inquiry and the doubtful causal assumptions you would not have saved the lives otherwise, only torture would have worked, etc. It is only ethical when the majority gains from the sacrifice of a few…… the end only justifies the means when giving up of a few would save the many….
It is not justified if it is for selfish reasons…. Many times, you have no choice. World leaders are always placed in situations like this…and they have to make decisions even if they do not fully agree because they are sometimes faced with inevitable scenarios.
Such is the war in iraq. What was decided by bush is to send send more military to iraq in the hopes that the war would end. Then the intervention is carried out the action in Action Research during which time, pertinent observations are collected in various forms. The new interventional strategies are Although experience of what happens is a key to all demonstrative knowledge, Aristotle supposed that the abstract study of "being qua being" must delve more deeply, in order to understand why things happen the way they do.
A quick review of past attempts at achieving this goal reveals that earlier Compatibilism accepts that determinism and free will both exist. Although they believe both to exist, compatibilists are determinists, because they believe that actions are determined by internal desires and outside forces.
Despite serious doubts about the value of these programs, the CIA and the American government continue to claim that their methods have been effective and a necessary evil for the greater good. However, the CIA has refused to release any information that supports these assertions. If the methods have indeed been effective, both the CIA and the US government have the responsibility to the American public to substantiate their claims.
With the recent rise of the Islamic State, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to eradicate all terrorist organizations around the globe. Now more than ever, it is crucial that the United States reevaluates the policies it employs in the war against terrorism.
Only then will the war against terror truly win a decisive victory in its battles against the evils in the world. Skip to content Home U. Foreign Policy The War on Terror: Does the End Justify the Means?
Drone Strikes The US drone strike program was first introduced in , and it has continued to remain an integral facet of counterterrorism measures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Previous story Profiting From Terrorism: Futures Markets and World Events.
Next story Mexico and the Politics of Terror. Before I began writing this post, I googled "the ends justify the means" and got , results. The volume of philosophical discourse that's gone into analyzing the implications of the phrase is staggering. Frankly, I think it's all a bunch of pseudo-academic crap. It's never acceptable to breach moral, ethical, or legal boundaries to achieve some perceived greater good. But I didn't always think that way. When I was young and full of myself, among other things, I believed the answer was yes, that the ends can, under certain circumstances, justify the means.
At the time, my youthful pursuits included such virtuous goals as completing chip designs on budget and on schedule, achieving personal happiness, and some not-so-virtuous quests we won't discuss here.
I know I shouldn't be so hard on myself, but I was indeed full of it back then. The ends never justify the means.
However, one thing is sure: if an end or goal is worthy, any mean to achieve that end is justifiable provided that both ends and means are noble and good. The question whether the end justifies the means depends on the type of goal or end a person wants to achieve and the means they use.
Mar 02, · The end does not justify the means. We are only justified when the means that we use to reach our goals are just as good as the end result. Some examples of this are murdering your father in order to acclaim the throne, the faults behind the 9/11 attack, and cheating on a .
This essay will discuss the human benefits received and the negative impacts on both humans and animals. By analysing these three aspects, the evidence provided will evaluate whether the end does justify the means of this method. The development of various drugs have been assisted by animal testing which has saved numerous lives and become medical discoveries. The end justifies the means is an expression that is often used in society to validate or excuse distasteful and objectionable actions undertaken by its people. In effect, the phrase is a justification for dispensing with all morality and principle in the passage towards a successful conclusion.
Unlike most editing & proofreading services, we edit for everything: grammar, spelling, punctuation, idea flow, sentence structure, & more. Get started now! The End Justifies The Means. The End Justifies The Means.: An enterprise can succeed only if it has a goal. To achieve that goal an effective method should be adopted. The method can be harmless with no violence in it. Or it can be hard and cruel which calls for a lot of .