Analysis: Does The End Justify The Means

“The ends justify the means”. This is a statement that has been uttered ceaselessly since its original usage by none other than Niccolò Machiavelli. Deceitful politicians and advocates of coercion, and even ruthless war criminals have adeptly utilized the phrase in order to sway public opinion towards their liking. While there is often a charismatic smile or a grim cry for reciprocation associated with the phrase (Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s speech following the bombing of pearl harbor being a key example of the latter), what often goes unnoticed is the enigmatic plan inherent within such a call to action. In fact, the usage of such a phrase itself implies that a morally reprehensible means will ensue, for there is otherwise no need to reassure

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

The study of justice concerns with obligations with which we must treat others fairly in a range of domains, including over distributive and recognitional matters. So a theory of global justice aims to give us an account of what justice on a global scale consists in. It is very well understood, with multiple highly developed theories offering alternative solutions to well-defined problems, therefore as long as it is no clear what the main questions are, we could formulate a lot of possible answers. In a broader sense, the international requirements of justice include standards governing of justification and conduct of war and standards that define the most basic human rights.1

When examining Wendell Berry’s piece his argument is stated in the sentence of his essay. “If you know even as little history as I do, it is hard not to doubt the efficacy of modern war as a solution to any problem except that of retribution¬¬-the “justice” of exchanging damage for another” (Berry, 2005).

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

Assassinations and targeted killings have been topics vastly debated around the world throughout history. As a matter of fact, this matter can be discussed through the eyes of Michael Walzer from a just war theory perspective. This viewpoint can be used in order to explain just assassinations of political and military leaders as well as other individuals. For example, a person can be the victim of targeted killings if their death would result in less future violence or warfare. However, the individual must pose an imminent threat, capture is not feasible, and the operation is executed in observance of the applicable laws of war. Yet the burden of proof and responsibility resides with those in highest power since it is their duty to maintain order among everyone below them. As a result, only those in power can decide who is assassinated and for what reason. All arguments against this belief can be annihilated by the fact that targeted killing will lower the chances of further combatant and civilian casualties. Ultimately, just assassination or targeted killing are blameless if the outcome will create less vehemence.

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

Everything has a price. Which is okay as long as the price is worth the results. In the past terrible things have happened under men claiming, “The ends justify the means.” Then history repeats itself and another horror occurs with the same tale from those responsible. A question, naturally, is asked in these scenarios. Do the ends justify the means? Eric Sevareid and Charles Percy Snow lived through both World Wars and have seen a lot of scientific progress change mankind. Sevareid looks at the world in a pessimistic manner, but Snow would disagree. While both agree there can be a cost to progress, Snow believes in the future of man, while Sevareid only sees darkness.

In this paper, I will argue that Luban’s critique of Walzer conception of legitimacy is misguided. I will first present Walzer’s argument for interventions using the “legalist paradigm,” in particular his conception of self-determination and how the principle of non-intervention may be set aside in exceptional circumstances. I will then present Luban’s critique of Walzer and his argument for developing an account of Just War directly in terms of human rights, before concluding with my own critique of Luban’s argument.

As history has taught us, it has become inconceivable for societies to perdure under unjust circumstances. The term “just” is ambiguous and its interpretation has been the cause of anarchy and eventual demise of societies. Contemporary western society has been in constant battle due to policies and ideologies derived from diverse just theories. One theory is introduced by John Rawls, who deduces that the most prudent option in interpreting the word “just” and declaring a set of principles is through a society’s overall agreement from an equal standpoint. Rawls’ developed the “original position” assessment to assist in this task, which projects a hypothetical situation through the veil of ignorance. Under the hypothetical utilized in the “original

"When and to what extent does the morally good end warrant or justify an ethically, politically, or legally dangerous means for its achievement?" This is the question posed by Carl Klockars about the ever growing Dirty Harry problem in society. This has become a focus of mass media and even a source of profit. The name itself comes from a Hollywood movie staring Clint Eastwood. If you believe the movies then the answer is never, for as long as the bad guy gets what he deserves then the means didn’t matter. But at some point a

In life, our character is tested numerous times through difficult predicaments. In a fictional scenario set in a genocidal, totalitarian regime, the head of house faces an extremely challenging dilemma. While the common individual may approach the predicament a certain way, the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther King, Jr., David Hume, and Nel Noddings give us an idea of what may be the most correct choice. While each philosopher presents a different and sound argument, they each have a different idea of what is morally right.

In using ends justify means, the morality of the actions are not questions, only the result is judged. The ends justify the means is the idea that the goal is the ultimate objective and overshadows whatever route that was used to arrive at the goal. When the means are disregarded, many moral complications will exist and unethical behavior will be seen. Machiavelli advised that “a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal” (91). For example, in a Machiavellian government, all troublemakers can and should be prosecuted, tortured, and given cruel and unusual punishments if it will keep everyone in the country united. A united people is a strong people and a strong people is a safe people. This satisfies the goal of a government: to keep the people safe. According to Machiavelli, the cruel and unusual treatments of the troublemakers is justified in keeping the people safe. Yet, this justifies the actions of the people of the likes of Adolph