Does the Aim justify the means?
Saint Vincent And The Grenadines
June 4, 2007 6:21am CST
I know it's a typical question that millions of people have made to themselves throughout History since Machiavelli made it popular centuries ago. Anyway i ask you mylotters: do you think that the aim justifies the means? or are the means used to reach that goal at least as important so that not everything is acceptable to get what you think is best, or what you want etc. I am not talking obviously about doing whatever it takes to reach a whim etc. but to reach something that you consider really important, something crucial. Even in those cases, do you think that it is justified as Machiavelli said or not?
2 people like this
4 Jun 07
That's it, mate. But to my mind, if an aim is good and noble, the means can't be that drastic, don't you agree? If you mean to ask if anyone can start a war against another to make him happy, then I wouldn't say it is good. Maybe, the term "nobility of the aim" should be understood the same by everyone? But that's hardly possible, as people never think the same. So, I can only come to one conclusion: only through dialogue can we reach any aim, be it noble or whatever it is like.
4 Jun 07
I don't think that this can be answered as a generic question. Depending on individual circumstances, the decision can be one either side. I would say that the right answer lies with the greater good. Some wrongs can be permissable to acheive a huge 'right', but that balance isn't even.
4 Jun 07
I have never agreed with this saying. The means is just as important as the end and it always matter how one got the achieve the end. One cannot achieve a right by doing something wrong. It's like saying killing all criminals to clean our society and be crime free is right. It is never that and I know that it would never work that way.