In your opinion, does Machiavelli's concept of "the end justifies the means" usually stand true?
No. If you use immoral methods to reach a positive result, it's not really worth it.
Rlands, I love your new profile picture. ❤
The street one? Thanks! It's in Georgetown and then I filtered it like crazy :D
Hehe, I kind of figured the latter part out. :) Hmm... I might put one of the ones I've taken in the city. (:
Yeah that would be cool! I love this one because it almost looks like a cartoon, but it's a real place that I'm at almost everyday!
Awe, that's cool. :) You just go for the scenery, or for work?
It's just close by, so sometimes for shopping, going out to eat, or just walking around :) if only I worked in Georgetown!
Oh, very nice. :D
What do you do for work, anyway? (:
I actually work in politics :) it's a very exciting field to work in these days...
What do you do? :P
I mean, are you actually a politician or are your a supporting character for a politician? (:
Haha this is getting much too specific! But I'm not a big shot congressman or anything if that's what you're wondering :)
Dear gosh, you could work for the cia. You're so secretive.
Hey, I could work for the NSA too. Watch your back! Haha kidding :) I can honestly tell you I do NOT work for the nsa.
Even if you did... I'm not afraid of you! ;P Come at me, rlands! *Jackie Chan hand taunt*
Haha I'm not exactly the scariest person ever, so I think you're safe! :)
Hahaha, I'm not either.
Besides, I couldn't see myself ever getting into a fight unless if someone were trying to hurt someone I know... (:
Are you sure? Not even with me? I mean, they don't call me "pugnacious and fight-provoking rlands" for nothing...
Yeah, OKAY. :P No, especially not you! (: You're awesome and an absolute sweetheart. ❤:D
Ugh so I guess my tough girl exterior is wearing down...I see how it is.
You had a tough girl exterior? I guess I have X-ray vision or something...
LEAD CLOTHES?! NOOOOOOOOO! ;P
Haha :) I guess it's time to take off the leather jacket and studded leggings...back to pastel sundresses!
Hmm, sounds good to me. :D And less... Thuggish. I could totally pull off a dress. Lmfao, just kidding...
Haha whatever floats your boat! Im sure you'd be gorgeous dahhhhling :) and being thuggish every once and a while is well deserved. I spend plenty of time being non thuggish!
Notice the word USUALLY in the question… As far as I'm concerned, the end RARELY justifies the means.
Machiavelli was awesome and really smart, but he tended to lean towards moral relativism. Probably because of the time period he lived in.
Every instance is so unique and what is right for one may not work for another. Also just because you got the result that you wanted doesn't mean you didn't pay too high a price for it. "At all costs" isn't always the best policy. Morals and ethics!!
I'm sure that's what Hitler thought.
And BOOM! Thus endeth the thread.
But his ends wasn't justifiable by anything. Thus endeth that theory.
Haha in all seriousness though, if the ends isn't justifiable do the means even matter?
Preventing a dictator from conquering the world by blowing his continent into non-existence. The end DOES NOT justify the means.
Abortion. Does the end justify the means?
Many people would think it does...
With a sufficiently important ends this can be true. As an example, on Apollo 13, the ends of getting the astronauts safely back to earth justified nearly any means as long as it fulfilled that mission and did not jeopardize the ends.
In his book "The Prince," Machiavelli was illustrating that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He had served under royalty that had been just, but when the leadership changed, so too did the way of business. The new approach was destructive.
In a debate about the merits of various moral theories, it is considered a fatal blow to any theory to be able to accuse its defender of asserting that "the ends justify the means." No moral theory in which this is true, allegedly, can ever be
worthwhile. "The ends justify the means" is actually an objection that is best applicable to intrinsic value theories - theories that hold that certain states have, for all practical purposes, an infinite value, such that they justify any and all
means. Any person who claims that the end cannot justify the means invariably ends up contradicting himself. At the same time, he says this he says that some other end (avoiding a particular set of acts) is so valuable that it justifies any and all
suffering that might go along with realizing that end. Do the ends justify the means? That all depends on your interpretation of ethics and morality. Generally, the ends do justify the means.
Very theoretical, but I get your point. Like I said and shame pointed out below, it can't be unconditional, but I do agree with you.
Wow... My brain hurts. So if I hold to a certain set of moral and ethical principles, for me intrinsically, the end will always justify the means? But unless someone else holds the exact same values and the exact same frame of reference, they might
See things differently, yes? So for Machiavelli, his end will always justify his means, but unless I share his positions exactly, I might say "no" to that principle.
Precisely. Machiavelli wrote "The Prince," as a guideline for those in positions of governmental power to hold unrivaled control over their populace. Those who share his beliefs [almost] fully would most likely believe that the ends always justify
the means. Those who don't, would most likely believe that the ends justify the means in some cases, but not all. That's usually the case.
In a social debate, then, the end would only justify the means with collective agreement (which is highly improbable), and individual responses to any hypothetical end justifying the means to achieve it would likely be against that proposition.
That's not absolute, but I would say it's generally the case. Nice analysis.
I think it depends on what the ends and the means were.
So I guess you wouldn't agree with it then :) like I said below, my only condition is that any harm caused by the means must be temporary.
No, but I will say I loved reading The Prince.
Yeah, don't know what it is about that book..
I try to keep it that way but not everyone can see the bigger picture. At least it may be different than the picture I see.
I am a very firm believer in this principle, personally. Most of the time (as long as you aren't hurting anyone) I don't care what you have to do as long as it turns out fine in the end.
Just remember though some of our greatest serial killers have been charismatic leaders justifying their means
True, but I'm not quite sure that fits this principle exactly. Their end is killing people...the means by which they do that is insignificant because their end is horrible!
Outliers. They want their way of life to flourish just had to get rid of a few hundred thousand people that's all
Interesting. In their minds surely this does ring true. I'll restate my disclaimer then: only if the means doesn't permanently harm anyone :)
I know ur heart is in the right place
:) thank you and I do see your point.
As Spock said so eloquently the needs of the many out way the needs of the few
In most causes but there are always outliers