I had a really hard time composing this within the stupid 45 min time limit. I hate time limits. Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback.
"If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable."
Whether the end justifies the means, is a debate we all have taken part in some point of our lives. In my opinion, we can only justify the means when they are morally, ethically, and socially upright.
People who go in pursuit of their dreams, more often than not, have to take the path which has more obstacles than others. When someone drops out of college to start a small business, we generally consider it as an act of lunacy. However, when that someone becomes a Bill Gates, we laud the decision. It just proves that it is not necessary to take the usual paths towards success. When success comes knocking, even the awkward decisions look coherent. But in this case, the goals are achieved through hard work or innovation, so the means can be easily defended.
For many people, the goal in life is to earn money at any cost. The match fixing scandals in cricket and football that have surfaced recently point out this phenomenon. Here we see sportsmen losing on purpose to earn some extra money. Thus, the goal is to earn money, but the method is illegal. Moreover, it brings disrepute to the sport, and the fans and spectators find it hard to trust the players in any future games.
Likewise, if a student cheats in the entrance examination to get a seat in a medical college, we cannot condone it. In this case, that particular student will attain her goal, but she may not become a competent doctor. She may put the lives of her future patients at risk. The greater good is more important than the goals of a particular person.
The most blatant example of such indiscretion is the attitude of the terrorists. Their goal of waging jihad does not justify their acts of killing innocent people or violating human rights. Similarly, we cannot rationalize the declaration of war on a country to rid it of an oppressive regime without any regard to the collateral damage it can cause.
In conclusion, the methods which violate our sense of righteousness and morals, cannot validate the goal, however worthy it may be. After all, our values are what make us humans.
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 violence. In both cases the goal is the same. Only the method of achieving it is different. The proverb, a very disputable one, means that if the goal is good the methods adopted for achieving it do not matter. It can be good or bad. The Florentine statesman, Machiavelli, in his book THE PRINCE advocated this doctrine. According to him, it is justifiable to go to any extent for achieving a good cause. It may be necessary to use violence sometimes. It will be harmful to some people. But all that can be justified if the goal is good. Some great Indian leaders and thinkers like Gandhi have opposed this doctrine. According to them it is not only necessary that goal should be good but the means adopted for achieving it should also be good. In some countries governments resort to anything for suppressing riots. When peaceful requests and talk fail to bring about the desired result, they use sheer force to suppress such riots. They argue that it is for the common good of the public. Whatever be the truth, the doctrine ‘the end justifies the means’ happens to be a very controversial one which provokes much thinking and dispute.
The End Justifies The Means.
to HOME PAGE