Does The Ends Ever Justify The Means?

Does the end ever justify the means? The response to this inquiry relies upon what the outcomes or objectives are and what implies are being utilized to accomplish them. If the goals and outcomes are noble and right, and the process we are using to perform them is equally excellent and fair, then yes, the ends surely justify the means. However, that is not what many people mean when they use this statement.

Most utilize it as a reason to accomplish their objectives through any method, any process, or any pathway, regardless of how unethical, unlawful or dangerous the process might be. What this statement means for most people implies that it does not make a minute difference how you get something you want as long as you are getting it. The ‘ends justifying the means’ usually implies accomplishing something positive end while supporting the bad process and then justifying the decent positive results. For example, aborting a girl child to save the marital life does not justify the killing. Although saving the marital life is ethically right, killing an innocent life is ethically wrong and cannot be justified in any way. Ends justifying the means are important ethical dilemmas in moral discourses. And it involves questions like this: “If you could spare the world by killing somebody, would you do it?” If the appropriate response of the person is “yes,” at that point, an ethically right result legitimizes the utilization of unethical means to accomplish it. Be that as it may, there are three unique things to consider in such a circumstance: the morality of the ends, the decency of the means, and the morality of the person involved in the process.

In this circumstance, the means (killing) is obviously unethical, and so is the killer. But the end is an enjoyable task that is sparing the world. Is it a good thing to allow the killers to kill anybody when they need to and then just justify the means? As in the given scenario, I strongly oppose the statement that ‘Ends justify the Means.’ If I were caught in a fictional situation, I would not take the drug that has been prepared by killing some innocent men (Lederman & Lederman, 2016).

Theoretical Background

Ethics, which is a vital facet of human research, is a practice as well as a discipline. In doing clinical research, it is very important to ethically justify the criteria for the research design, conduct the experiment, and review the clinical investigation. All must be identified by the requirements and obligations of both the researcher and the human subject. In medical ethics, there is a major difference between two fundamental moral positions: deontology and consequentialism. Deontology states that whether an action is “great” or “terrible” relies on the actual nature of the action. Most people believe that there are specific activities which are intrinsically terrible, such as killing someone, plague, robbery, and so on. Some proponents of deontology, similar to Kant, have a firm belief that stealing something, for instance, is always awful. In other words, one cannot justify these actions. Consequentialism, on the other hand, states that whether an activity is “great” or “terrible” relies upon the outcome. According to them, there is a standard by which one can measure the results (generally “utility”) and propose that the best strategy is to increase utility. For consequentialists, the ends always justify the means. The moral convictions and beliefs of the majority of individuals fall into the mixture of both philosophies. Numerous individuals hold the deontological belief and have an opinion that some actions like torturing or raping a person are never justified, while these same individuals also hold the viewpoint of consequentialists that it is occasionally alright to lie, just as “white lie”.

A third one is the utilitarian approach; according to this approach, decisions and choices are made based on the greatest good that is obtained for the greatest number of people. This is quite close to the consequentialist approach since this is too based upon the proposition that actions determine the morality of some intervention. According to this approach, if the results are advantageous for a vast number of people, then it is ok to harm a few individuals. This approach is normally guided by the computed advantages or damages for an action based on the empirical evidence. A few cases based upon the utilitarian approach in the clinical setting include using artificial respiration for premature babies or treatment of acid or fire burn victims based upon the availability of time. Although a wide range of people agree with this approach, for me, the only thing that is right in its original essence is the right way to evaluate it. As in the case of the given scenario, I would prefer to find another way rather than using a drug that has been made by killing innocent homeless people. For me, choosing the right path and living in peace is far better than preferring the decision where the means needed to be justified by the end.

Factual Examples of History

Nobody can apply awful means to any remarkable and high-end. It is just like a person who is constructing an extraordinary house by using terrible material – it is not an appropriate way. This given expression, “the end legitimizes the means”, has tricked all of us, and we have never focused on its true meaning carefully, which is what it’s saying. What we neglect to find in this announcement is merely the end. We all deny to see and precisely look at the means and how they influence the conclusions. Is it possible that whatever the end is, we keep on ignoring the process? There is a significant measure of trouble and confusion when pitiful means are utilized to achieve admirable means. History has been filled with many examples that have focused on experiments on humans. However, proper guidelines are available for using humans in clinical trials. Although some clinical trials have resulted in the successful invention of medicines, there are many flop experiments that have resulted in the deaths of subjects. For example, In 1898, Freund almost executed his subject under study while exploring different avenues regarding X-beams to evacuate hair on moles. In 1857, carbon tetrachloride was utilized as a human tranquillizer despite the fact that a couple of animal studies would have indicated it to be inadequate. In 1905, Fletcher employed the detainees of a crazy shelter to consider beriberi. Some forty-three patients got the illness, and eighteen expired. The investigation is viewed as critical and frequently referred to, yet nobody has commented on the moral issues that were made. In 1902, a progression of analyses was performed on twelve common administration representatives to determine the impacts of nourishment additives. However, there was no confirmation of worry for the subjects’ welfare (Angell, 1997; Shapiro & Meslin, 2001).

From 1932 to 1972, the scandalous “Tuskeegee try” occurred utilizing dark guys to decide the normal course of syphilis despite the fact that treatment had existed for quite a long time. Positively the evilest, however, among the most useless investigations of all were those led by Nazi doctors on regular Jewish folks, detainees of war and others entombed in inhumane imprisonments. All these deaths of innocent people do not justify the means.

Similarly, In Guatemala, during the time period of 1946 to 1948, scientists of the USA infested many people with a mental health condition with sexually transferred disease (STD). Investigators from the Public Health Services of the US-directed analyses on the hundreds of US-directed, both male and female, who were kept at Guatemala’s Mental Health Hospital. The scientists infused the patients with syphilis and gonorrhoea —and insisted a significant number of patients pass the illness on to others by having sexual relationships. The examinations were then done in collaboration with the Guatemalan government. After that, these trials were completed by PHS under the fabrication of syphilis vaccinations. In 2010, Susan Reverby, who was looking into a book on the Tuskegee syphilis tests, uncovered all of these experiments. Due to these reasons, the Secretary of the USA, Hillary Clinton, allotted an apology to Guatemala. Even President Barack Obama apologized to President Álvaro Colom, who had a view that these trials were unspeakable atrocities against humankind.

Another example from history is the Soviet creation of an assortment of products (oil, steel, and so on), which came at a horrifying cost. A large number of Soviets passed on of open hunger, and thousands more were mistreated or sent to gulags during the Great Purge that accompanied the 5-year designs. It is not excessively troublesome, making it impossible to state that the sacrifice needed by the Soviet individuals was not worth primary pick up in the economy; be that as it may, it is not that straightforward. These changes in the Soviet businesses were expected, which made it possible for the Soviets effectively repulse Nazi Germany in WW II, hypothetically sparing billions of more lives.

Another great example from history would be the Holocaust, which was performed by the Nazi administration. Is this end commendable after every one of the incidents that occurred? The example of the great two World Wars is also another scenario. These problems are occasionally found in times of war and in the political field. On the other hand, governments were having no care of it as they just wanted to win by all means. They simply wanted triumph in spite of the fact that it implies losing numerous lives, property, and considerably more confidence. In these two major incidents, the main conclusion is the achievement, and any means that would add to progress is believed to be legitimized, yet not by everybody. Any success can be considered as the standard by which we as a whole measure the advantage of the means. Nonetheless, a few advantages are shallow and don’t keep going long. The abuse of the expression “the end always justifies the means” disclaims Machiavelli’s primary point – that “a ruler should consider future occasions and get ready for potential issues. On the off chance that a man truly thinks from a Machiavellian point of view, he or she would utilize vital intends to accomplish a conclusion to keep away from future confusions” (Bovee, 2009; McGowan & Mahon, 1995).

The Soviet Union founded a progression of five-year designs from 1928 to 1941, with an aim to support the Soviet economy. Farms were collectivized, and excellent additions were made in Martin Luther King Jr.’s passing on because of the demonstrations he began, but still, the ends were met. The Whites during his time opposed his belief as the Whites likewise maintained the prospect that the ends justify the means. According to them, what has been done to the Negroes is done because of self-protection. The work of government was to protect the State, so they followed up on what was needed: they gave the African Americans what they deserved. The passing of Martin Luther King Jr. is another example of both ends and means that must be honourable, and that can be defended without a second thought. Martin Luther King Jr. is a remarkable example to be taken when talking about this expression that “the end legitimizes the methods.” As Thayer said, “Be solid is consequently the first and last precept for countries and sovereigns to watch, and Machiavelli teaches them how to utilize their quality.” In this scenario, Martin Luther King Jr. knew what means he had to use for his remarkable and desirable end.

Conclusions

Any broad explanation, for example, is more terrible than useless in overseeing human activities when it concerns the lives of others. It advances group attitude and vigilante activity. In all conditions where a man’s life is in a critical position, each different case must be painstakingly weighed. What makes an individual “bothersome,” and to whom would they say they are unnecessary? What results will the murdering of the individual being referred to have upon others? Who will be influenced positively, and who will be impacted negatively? No comprehensive explanation, similar to “the end legitimizes the means,” ought to ever be utilized by the sensible mastermind. There is an almost negligible difference between death and murder, and “means” utilized can be disastrous at times, more than anything the “troublesome” could do.

Individuals who seek after their fantasies and their objectives will probably take a way that is loaded with complications. It is realized that objectives are accomplished through assiduous work. The way to achieve such objectives is unique in terms of the objectives themselves. One thing must be remembered, however: both the ends and the means need to be honourable and excellent. What I have demonstrated is that the conclusions or goals of any specific person can directly be sustained by the ways used to accomplish them if they are sufficiently admirable. As Machiavelli calls attention, Be that as it may, to practice keenness, the ruler must read histories and concentrate there on the activities of distinguished men, to perceive how they have borne themselves in war, to analyze the reasons for their triumphs and thrashing, to keep away from the last mentioned and mimic the previous. There are a lot of horrendous cases of defending indecent, illegal, and wrong means, yet Machiavelli shows us learn from our past that one should try to achieve ends through honourable and great means.

All in all, we are everything except people who fail more often than not. The qualities that we have as people are what make us people. Any methods we utilize which abuse our impression of ethics and uprightness can never legitimize the end of the objectives, regardless of how commendable they may appear to be. As found in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, there are inevitability a thousand tactics to accomplish one single end, and it is reliant upon you whether go and achieve the ends through honorable means or through immoral means.

To close, there are numerous situations where the means legitimize the ends. However, with the moral rules and morals sheets set up, the members are, as a general rule, appropriately ensured. In the present case scenario, I am against harming others by researching them, but if proper informed consent is taken, minimal risk is maintained, and everything is done without hurting others, then there is no harm in it. Moreover, if researchers and experimenters are finding new drugs and medications without harming others, then this is, of course, a greater good.

And clearly, the ends do not justify the means.

References

Lederman, N.G. & Lederman, J.S. (2016). Do the Ends Justify the Means? Good Question. But What Happens When the Means Become the Ends? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27: 131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9464-5.

Shapiro, H., & Meslin, E. (2001). The ethics of international research. N Engl J Med 2001, 314, 139–42.

Angell, M. (1997)/ The ethics of clinical research in the Third World. N Engl J Med, 337, 847–9.

McGowan, R. A., & Mahon, F. (1995). The ends justify the means: The ethical reasoning of environmental public interest groups and their actions. Int J Value-Based Manage,8, 135.

Bovee, W. G. (2009). The end can justify the means–but rarely. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 6, 135.