Does the End Justify the Means?

Do people deserve to die? This is the question that society has had us ask ourselves for many years. The speaker argues that the real question surrounding the death penalty is, “Do we deserve to kill?”

Many people use the moral reasoning of an eye for an eye to justify capital punishment. However this doesn’t work because a murderer would be murdered, a robber would be robbed, a thief would be stolen from, a drug dealer would be sold drugs and so on down the line for the rest of the infinite number of possible offenses. This doesn’t work because most of them wouldn't care if it was done back to them because they think it morally acceptable to commit these crimes and that they would just be having something that is morally acceptable done to them. Many criminals don't have super serious offenses that deserve to have an eye for an eye. For example, a drug dealer is probably addicted to drugs so to sell and make them use drugs would just be feeding the, addiction

Niccolo Machiavelli termed the phrase “Does the End Justify the Means” in a 16th century political writings titled The Prince. According to The American Heritage Idioms Dictionary, the term is defined as, “A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it” (Ammer, 2017). The reasons for war vary from protecting and preserving our freedom, to economic reasons. Should the adage be followed unconditionally in terms of all wars? In the case of the U.S. military, the answer is yes. If our military didn’t feel this way, the U.S. would not be the powerhouse it is today in protecting our freedoms, assisting in economic stability and keeping our nation safe.

The death penalty is a topic that has been argued for and against by many people. Some have no qualms with the punishment while others protest it greatly. As such there are three main arguments that are presented by both sides; is the death penalty immoral, does the death penalty deter crime, and should the death penalty ultimately be allowed in the court of law.

Imagine a world without those brave people who dared to not abide by the law and fight for a right. A world without Gandhi would be a world without independent India; without Mandela there would be white superiority in Africa; without freedom fighters, there would be no democracy in Nepal. I believe that all the actions of such law breakers are good, even though they were against various laws, and such actions can be justified to some extent. Even though laws are meant to maintain order and protect rights, it is not always justified; some might be unfair to minorities whereas others might stir up a revolution. Some just violate human rights. In such cases, civil disobedience

What does the speaker argue is the real question surrounding the death penalty? Do we deserve to kill for the crimes people have committed?

Some socio cultural rules that are totally irrelevant must be breached, if not it shall create stymies for people who want to live freely. As our societies are concerned we are barely allowed to do intercaste marriages, polygamy else our fate of living or not is depicted by the society even if our family accepts it. Unjust laws do exist in the society, but that has to be removed slowly rather than protesting and making a mess out of everything. Most of the times breaking the laws becomes a must: when u go impecunious and your wife is dying because u cannot afford the drug to cure her and for that if you steal the drug, such cases can be justified morally. Yes, the person surely has to get punished but the punishment can be reduced to minimum as that ‘stealing’ was for a purpose and such reasons seem clearly justifiable.

　　Punishment is a necessary evil, it is required to deter criminals from committing crimes and to serve as an example to other potential criminals

When I first heard about the book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks", I thought it was just a reading assignment when I was in high school that I had to complete for a grade. As I began reading I became particularly interested in Henrietta Lacks and the HeLa cells. In "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks", Rebecca Skloot talks about Henrietta Lacks and how her cells were taken without her permission, and how her family suffered afterwards. Skloot shows how medicine and science were seen back in the 1950's compared to now.

2. Choose two selections from this part-one in which you think justice is served and one in which it isn’t. Use details from the selections to support your choices.

“Rather, this discussion deals with torture for the purpose of preventing a greater evil.” Page. 125

It is better to be morally just than unjust because it makes one better, as a person. I believe that a morally just person, will get good things in return. The consequences of doing good are more favorable than those of not being good. Being good means being a good citizen. It is important that we do good things because we will gain approval from people that are important to us. Being congratulated is better than being scorned because it makes one feel satisfied. However, regardless of reward, it is better to be a good person, than a bad person “And this, then, is the genesis and being of justice: it is a mean between what is best—doing injustice without paying the penalty—and what is worst—suffering injustice without being able to avenge oneself" (359a). Even though bad things happen to good people, and bad people seem to get away with things, the just person is most likely happier. Good people are loved, and respected. Bad people, are typically lonely. One should do the action that results in the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. This is because it is morally right to benefit as many people as possible. While it is better to be a just person, many people are not. Many people believe that there are excuses as to why they can behave unjustly.

For example, an unjust ruler would use his influence to give his friends a privileged status while a just ruler would abstain from doing that. In this case, the unjust ruler would receive praise while the just ruler would lose his friends. Without a doubt, skillfully implemented injustice can result in a lot of praise, power, and wealth. According to utilitarian ethics, injustice appears to be more profitable than justice because it leads to a better result for the individual. However, this is a misconception which needs to be corrected.

Many people have heard of the question, “does the end justify the means?”, but what does it mean? This question can be answered on both sides as yes it does justify and no it does not justify the means. It all depends on the situation in hand. Were the steps to achieve the end good or bad? If the steps to the end were good then it justifies but if it was bad then it does not justify. So the answer to the question would be depending on the means to get there and the end results.

"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