Is it justifiable to perform an evil act in order to achieve good consequences
Many have argued that it is the end that justifies the means. A wide spread school of thought in many people would argue that right and evil depend on the end results. If the end result of an act is good, then the means used are perceived as ethical and justified (Alexander, Moor, 2007).This philosophy has largely influenced the thinking of many people. Certainly, our culture is diverse and this philosophy appears to be practical in many ways.
Many have argued that sometimes it is necessary to carry out an evil act in order to achieve good end results. For instance, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States is said to have highly contributed to the end of world War two. In fact, this invasion, though resulted to death of many, is said to have prevented a full scale war between the United States and Japan, which would have led to even more loss of life and property. Therefore, it can be argued that this bombing was necessary because it saved far much worse scenario. It may also be argued that the end result of peace justified the means of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Carlisle, 209). But, it morally wrong and evil to kill innocent civilians and this cannot justify end result of peace.
The school of thought that the end justifies the means has also been argued in terms of the consequences of the end results (Alexander moor, 2007) Here, I will show that an evil act is an evil act and that in many cases, what people call necessary evil can actually be abused. For example, torturing a suspect to get false confessions would be unjustified.
Another case is a lie. It is clearly understood that lying is evil, but many believe there can be exceptions to this believe. For instance, lets say a co-worker at your workplace is breaking the organizations rules, but heshe needs his job to feed hisher family. When asked by the boss if your colleague is breaking the company rules, many would rather tell a lie. This is for the good of saving your colleagues job. The question is would this be a justified evil act One might argue that, indeed, this is a necessary evil. However, it should be understood here that these lies have bad consequences, even if not in the short-run, at the long-run, worse scenarios might occur (Carlisle, 2009). Therefore it is not justifiable to perform an evil in order to achieve good consequences.
In most cases, we usually have the end results first and then use whatever means to achieve them. Indeed, whether what we do will result in good or bad consequences is actually unknowable to us (Alexander Moor, 2007). Therefore, we should strive as much as possible to use good ethical means for any course we take. The means and end must all be good for the act to be good in the short and long run (Carlisle, 2009).
Many have argued that it is the end that justifies the means. A wide spread school of thought in many people would argue that right and evil depend on the end results. If the end result of an act is good, then the means used are perceived as ethical and justified (Alexander, Moor, 2007).This philosophy has largely influenced the thinking of many people. Certainly, our culture is diverse and this philosophy appears to be practical in many ways.
Many have argued that sometimes it is necessary to carry out an evil act in order to achieve good end results. For instance, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States is said to have highly contributed to the end of world War two. In fact, this invasion, though resulted to death of many, is said to have prevented a full scale war between the United States and Japan, which would have led to even more loss of life and property. Therefore, it can be argued that this bombing was necessary because it saved far much worse scenario. It may also be argued that the end result of peace justified the means of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Carlisle, 209). But, it morally wrong and evil to kill innocent civilians and this cannot justify end result of peace.
The school of thought that the end justifies the means has also been argued in terms of the consequences of the end results (Alexander moor, 2007) Here, I will show that an evil act is an evil act and that in many cases, what people call necessary evil can actually be abused. For example, torturing a suspect to get false confessions would be unjustified.
Another case is a lie. It is clearly understood that lying is evil, but many believe there can be exceptions to this believe. For instance, lets say a co-worker at your workplace is breaking the organizations rules, but heshe needs his job to feed hisher family. When asked by the boss if your colleague is breaking the company rules, many would rather tell a lie. This is for the good of saving your colleagues job. The question is would this be a justified evil act One might argue that, indeed, this is a necessary evil. However, it should be understood here that these lies have bad consequences, even if not in the short-run, at the long-run, worse scenarios might occur (Carlisle, 2009). Therefore it is not justifiable to perform an evil in order to achieve good consequences.
In most cases, we usually have the end results first and then use whatever means to achieve them. Indeed, whether what we do will result in good or bad consequences is actually unknowable to us (Alexander Moor, 2007). Therefore, we should strive as much as possible to use good ethical means for any course we take. The means and end must all be good for the act to be good in the short and long run (Carlisle, 2009).
No comments:
Post a Comment