Human nature is naturally focused on outcomes. We can deal with a difficult, sad story if it has a happy ending. Conflict that is effectively resolved, or peace that has been accomplished, often has a way of overshadowing some really challenging times.
If a team won a big game of which winning is good , but used dishonest means perhaps by deflating footballs , the outcome itself is tarnished. If people gave gifts to the underprivileged, but did so by stealing them from others, stealing would undermine the charitable act. Ultimately, the underlying message of the adage is that only one thing matters more than outcome.
And that is how we got there, including the reasons and processes we used to accomplish what we did. Although society has a way of still rewarding and idolizing those who succeed despite dubious, or downright despicable means, the saying itself still rings true, and science supports that reinforcing good means versus preferred outcomes does pay off. For example, studies indicate that when we praise effort over performance in the classroom, students end up actually doing better academically and psychologically.
Therefore, according to consequentialist theory, the end justifies the means in all circumstances. Of course, for most of us this theory is difficult to square with our desire to get along with, and care for, other people; especially those within our immediate family, community, or friend group. Most of us feel that in many situations the end does not justify the means. That said, there are plenty of modern-day and historical examples, several of which we will touch upon below, in which this moral pull is ignored, and the ends of bad behavior win out.
There have been other examples of this phrase in action throughout history, both in literature and in non-fiction accounts. Ask whether you are proud of how you achieved it. Do you agree or disagree that the end justifies the means? Let me know what you think on Twitter , or by sending me an email. Until recently, Eddy Lepp ran an organic medicine business in Northern California. His herbal product soothed nausea and remedied vomiting, especially as suffered by chemo patients.
He had a problem, though. On the other hand, not selling his remedy had a significant downside: it was consigning his clients to debilitating suffering. So when federal agents came knocking on his door, he had to make a decision. He should tell the truth even though that will mean the end of his business. On the other hand, if the ends justify the means—if your ethical interest focuses on the consequences of an act instead of what you actually do—then the ethics change.
Across the entire field of traditional ethics, this is a foundational distinction. Is it what you do that matters, or the consequences?
0コメント