A major focus of disagreement in political thought concerns Macchiavelli's statement that the ends justify the means. I seek to solve this issue. People are responsible for what they do; and that means both the ends and the means. Wrongful ends or wrongful means become judgeable. Doing wrong things, or doing things for wrong purposes, result in wrong things done. Which means that both the ends and the means matter. Hitler and Stalin were both horrendous despots whose means were equally abhorrent. However Hitler is generally hated more than is Stalin, because his ends – killing the Jews and enslaving everyone else – were worse than Stalin's ends – creating a worker's utopia. This shows that ends matter. However so do the means. Stalin and Khruschev both had the same ends; but their means differed greatly. Khruschev is seen as a much better person than Stalin, because his means were much more humane. Do the ends justify the means? No. Both the ends and the means are part of one's behavior, and one will be judged on both. It is important to have the right goal, and it is important to behave rightfully in pursuit of that right goal. Both the ends and the means matter, and both need to be the best that they can be.
The only possible justification for ANY "means" are found in the ends. We don't move without there being meaningful ends in our movement. Interpreting the quote to mean that any end justifies any means just doesn't make sense. And, taking that view of the statement doesn't lead to any profitable discussion. I think the issue has more to do with the issue of expediency. For example, the US will condemn one's property if it is expedient for some end that is considered important. Realpolitic isn't actually based on taking arbitrarily extreme means. However, it MAY cause us to ignore moral implications of the ethnic clansing of Palestinians from West Bank, or the lives of those we bombed with agent orange in Vietnam, or the civilians massacred by our nuclear bombs on Japan, etc.
There is s mix of examples in the bible. There are people that did the right thing and God judged them.. there are examples of people doing wrong, lying for instance, and God blessed them for it. The condition of the heart is what makes the determination.
I don't understand that idea. Let's say my end is to provide my family with food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc. None of those qualify as means. The means would relate to how I go about doing that provision, would they not? Let's say my end is a more peaceful world, including here in the US. What are the means from which I might choose? I'm sure I'm missing your meaning here.
There is a long list of heinous criminals who were lucid and seriously believed their means were justified. I think it's a requirement that an outside evaluation is applied - not just the "heart" of the individual. While I agree that you found those cases in the Bible, I think God's analysis was deeper than measuring the "heart" of the individual. That is, those same individuals could have acted in ways that were consistent with having a "good heart", but which God would not have praised. God praised the Israelites for slaughtering every man, woman, child and animal in Jericho in order to take land for themselves. I'm not so sure that is an act that would always be praised by God - though God seems fine with Jewish ethnic cleansing of West Bank. Would God be OK with outright slaughter of all those living there, given Jewish dedication to biblical calls for a new Jerusalem, etc.?
Let's take both of your examples : If you says your end is to provide your family food, shelter, healthcare, education, that mean you want to contribute to the concrete happiness of your family. If you took for instance an immoral job such as drug dealing, or even a legal job which require you to crook some elderly, I'm pretty sure that in the end it would have a bad influence on your psychic health, the model you will provide to your children and have in the end a bad influence on their happiness/education. The mean you would choose would have an influence on the happiness of your family, that's why there is no clear separation between the end and the mean. For a peaceful world, peace is a constant process. You can't reach a point where there would be peace and no war anymore could happen, it's a constant process. I don't believe that you can simply just kill the bad guys and here it is, there is peace. Peace require constant dialogue, effort on education to be reached. It's a never ending process : again the mean and the end are not that clearly separated.
Terrorist activity to ovethrow a repressive dictator could be justified, providing it led to a better outcome. Civil disobedience can be applauded too, like in HK now or during the civil rights movements in the States.
OK. I see that connection as one is drawn to compare the moral/ethical/legal qualities of the end and the means. Let's say someone rings a homeowner's doorbell and the owner is scared - so, they shoot the guy on their porch. That's clearly one means of achieving the end of reducing fear. So, the case in court is going to relate in some way to the question of whether the ends (reduing risk) justified the means (murder).
I don't believe that in this world, it is needed to have wrong means, or I want to say very wrong means, to achieve right goals. If I'm wrong that I'm wrong: I not against the means for a sense end. The Society need to work and it require what I call sacrifice.
