That definitely lays a few seeds of thought. Means do justify ends, but when your ends eventually become a means, there in is where it can come back to bite you in the ass.

Lets use violence to protect our home. I am a huge advocate of the Castle Law, but lets apply your thoughts to this deepthot.
------hypothetically---------
I am justified to shoot someone entering my house. I use violence (means) to ensure my family is safe (ends). If someone uses this action as a way to justify changing gun laws, my ends became their means.

Needless to say I guess a man should be thoughtful to what means their ends could be used for.......

Interesting idea deepthot

Yes. As was pointed out, whether the ends justify the means always depends on what is the end, and what is the means. There can be no general answer to the question. And, what are ends in one context, may be the means in a different context. I work (means) to make money (end). But money (means) is earned to purchase a car (end). And, the car (means) is purchased to get to the job (end) (means) to make money. Ends and means are always relative to one another. Nothing is an absolute means, nor an absolute end.

I agree that one has to take the larger picture into account. But we cannot deny that the ends can justify the means; that doing things that would be wrong otherwise can be right because of the end result.

As an example that supports what you say,....

Another modern example might be wiretapping. The ends (catching criminals) are used to justify the means (invading privacy). And indeed, as you would fear from the sound of your OP, the government attempts to use "ends justify the means" reasoning to wiretap to an excessive degree. But the way you have phrased it you go too far, and argue against wiretapping completely.

You said "you don't end war by waging it". So then, we can't catch criminals by having cops engage in criminal activities (undercover)? We can't use lethal force to capture a serial killer?

Saying, as Ken does, that it is all relative to context is a rationalization for immoral activity: it allows us to slip by if we want to cheat. "I want this item very badly, so I will shop-lift it After all, I'm poorer than the owner of this store."

All I said it that whether the ends are worth the means depends on what are the ends, and on what are the means. in a particular case. Don't you agree with that? I don't see how that would justify shop-lifting. Do you?

I may be wrong, but it seem to me that ends are related to means used: if you want peace, use peaceful means. If love is your end (your goal), use loving means to get to it. If you want stability, then stable means are required to reach your end-in-view.

Isn't it reasonable to be aware that chaotic or destructive means will not result in a stable, sustainable state of affairs. A state of justice is a state of balance; to be in balance we cannot use means that are out of balance.

That to me is the most basic point to learn about The Means/Ends relationship. The means ought to be compatible with the ends desired.

(For example, Woodrow Wilson said that World War I would be "a war to end all war.") You don't end war by waging it.

It works for me !


Furthermore, what is an 'end' today was a 'means' yesterday. For example, an engagement (getting engaged) is an end to dating around, and is a means to a marriage. It is both, a means, and an end. Doesn't this imply that means must be compatible with ends?

That's why the means/ends relationship is important. What do you think about this crucial ethical principle?

For a more detailed and thorough argument on the topic, see Chapter 12 of the manual, a link to which is offered below.

The way you have worded this, I think you are wrong. If there is a house on a piece of land, and I want to construct a new house in the spot where the current house is, I am likely to achieve this by destroying the house that is there, and then build the new house. So destruction can be a preliminary to construction.

However, I suspect that what you are getting at is the idea that the means should be compatible with the ends, as, for example, if I want an honest relationship with my wife, and I know that she will not accept philandering, then having an affair would not be compatible with what I want. Rather curiously, many people do things like that that are counter to their own professed interests.





Let us consider a different example. Do you think a pacifist approach would have worked in Word War II to achieve a desirable result against Hitler, once he rose to power?

If all one cared about was whether there was a war or not, then, perhaps, not fighting would be the way to achieve such a goal. But rarely is a lack of war the only consideration, as one may be interested in having a just and fair society, and that might not be possible without fighting against someone with other ideas.





"Means" are simply the ways that goals ("ends") are achieved (or attempted). Obviously, one should select appropriate means to achieve one's ends (assuming, of course, that one should have such goals), but what that will be will need to be determined by examining the particular thing in question. One cannot say, a priori, that the means need to resemble the ends, which you appear to be saying in your opening paragraph.

As John Dewey pointed out, rational action consists in constantly adjusting the means to the end, and the end to the means. If we find that means are not acceptable, we will adjust the end to the means; and perhaps, then, adjust the end to the means. Only fanatics will not go though this attempt at a rational equilibrium between ends and means. And, as George Santayana said, "The fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts when he has forgotten his goal".

That makes sense to me, that I consider the circumstances when going to achieve a goal. The means will be shaped by the circumstances, and no doubt the goal is also related to the circumstances. And I agree fanatics are all about effort.

I don't think you're looking at "justify" in a moral sense. You're using it to mean rational.

The ends don't justify (in a moral sense) the means. The means are justified by being in keeping with who you want to be.

If you don't want to be a monster, you won't use monstrous means, no matter what the ends are.

Well, I would think that a rational action would also be a moral action. There are lots of considerations that go into judging the means. Your sense of who you are, but also whether you think that the means can accomplish the end.

....I suspect that what you are getting at is the idea that the means should be compatible with the ends, as, for example, if I want an honest relationship with my wife, and I know that she will not accept philandering, then having an affair would not be compatible with what I want. Rather curiously, many people do things like that that are counter to their own professed interests.

Let us consider a different example. Do you think a pacifist approach would have worked in Word War II to achieve a desirable result against Hitler, once he rose to power?

...having a just and fair society, and that might not be possible without fighting against someone with other ideas.

... Obviously, one should select appropriate means to achieve one's ends (assuming, of course, that one should have such goals), but what that will be will need to be determined by examining the particular thing in question. One cannot say, a priori, that the means need to resemble the ends, which you appear to be saying in your opening paragraph.

...

I would recommend that we be alert enough to catch the rise of Hitler and his movement, his following, early, and do something to head it off before it became such a menace to the world..

It's possible to achieve without literally fighting, without employing violence. Have you considered that possibility? We need to be smart, not tough. We need cleverness and skill more than we need militant warriors. We ought to set out to "win hearts and minds," to persuade, to set a shining example (in our own nation) of how to flourish, in Aristotle's sense of the term.

We need to have a focused purpose to teach the world what Ethics is all about, and why they should soon adopt it. First, though, we have to understand the principles ourselves.

I did not say that "the means need to resemble the ends." I guess I failed to communicate clearly. I did speak of compatibility. I did say that it was a matter of perspective whether a specific event is labeled as a means, or as an end. I did make the point that if an ethical end-in-view is chosen as a goal, immoral means will very likely not get us there.

For example, if Freedom is a goal for our nation, the denial of freedom to a cohort of our citizens will not get us to our goal.

(Ideally we should rehabilitate - or at least strive to do so - those we arrest, rather than just locking them up and warehousing them.) But that's another thread...on the theme What is real [criminal] justice?

I would recommend that we be alert enough to catch the rise of Hitler and his movement, his following, early, and do something to head it off before it became such a menace to the world..