Can it sometimes be right to use a bad means to achieve a good end? Don't the conditions of human life require some shadiness and deceit to achieve security and success?
But the purpose a man has in mind may be something as plainly wrong as stealing or murder. With such an end in view, he may decide that certain things will help him succeed and others won't. While he would be right, from the point of view of mere expediency, in using the former and not the latter, is he right morally in taking whatever steps might serve as means to his end? If not, then he is not morally justified in employing such means.
This brings us to the heart of the matter. Since a bad end is one that we are not morally justified in seeking, we are not morally justified in taking any steps whatsoever toward its accomplishment. Hence, no means can be justified - that is, made morally right - by a bad end.
http://www.radicalacademy.com/adlerendsmeans.htm
Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, on a consequentialist account, a morally right action is an action that produces good consequences.
Consequentialism is usually understood as distinct from deontology, in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from the character of the act itself rather than the consequences of the action and virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the action itself. The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying ?- though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
Admittedly, one answer -- or dodge, if you will -- would be to claim the right of anyone or any nation to self-defense. In other words, if someone attacks you, then is it okay to fight back, right? Self defense does sound like a viable argument, but is it also okay once someone has attacked you, to counterattack them without the hinderance of any moral restraints? If someone hits you in the back of the head, is it okay to turn and blow their brains out -- and quite possibly take a few innocent bystanders out as well?
Politically this is a tough question, particularly for anyone who is promoting fear as the basic justification for doing most anything. Inasmuch as fear has been pretty much rampant among the voting population in recent days, the idea that one should show restraint and adhere strictly to due process and adhere to moral principles in retaliating for an attack tends to receive little or no attention.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward818.htm
What about Satyagraha of which Gandhiji was the pioneer? Gandhiji was clear in his mind that a law which, in one's opinion, is evil ought to be resisted and defied, and not doing so implies siding with evil. To the British this was a wrong means to achieve a right end and even today governments in our country are telling all agitators the same thing!
* The deontological school prescribes that the means used should harm no one, be fair to all concerned and should be the autonomous choice of the decision-maker.
* The consequentialist school holds that the results should decide whether the means chosen were justified or not. (If the omelette turns out to be good, breaking the egg was justified!)
* The utilitarian school evaluates means by their usefulness in achieving the desired ends.
* The synergistic optimisation school is a refinement of the utilitarian school in that it wants the utility to be not egoistic (selfish) or altruistic (entirely benefiting others) but synergistic (benefiting everyone).
* Benthamism is a more practical version of synergistic optimisation and aims at benefiting not everyone but the maximum possible number of people to the maximum possible extent. (This is what most democracies attempt to do. This is also what makes an elected government think that merely because it has obtained majority of sorts, it alone represents the will of the entire people and can do whatever it wants as long it is in power.)
* Max Weber contrasts ethics of responsibility with ethics of absolute ends clearly leaning towards the former which involves choosing means with a sense of responsibility (meaning, perhaps, a sense of conscience).
* The contextual school believes that the correctness of the choice of means would depend on, and vary with, the context in which the ends are sought to be achieved. (Kali Yuga, apparently, justified approaches which the earlier, more virtuous Yugas would not have approved of!)
To conclude, we are still unable to say whether ends justify means or not; all that we are able to say is that ends do not justify being mean!
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/11/stories/13110612.htm
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace