"The end justifies the means"

[JamesATyler]

“The end justifies the means.”

Doesn’t this imply their is an definitive “end”? I don’t think that is how reality actually works. For example, say one decides a certain person should be the president. The need for that person to be elected is so great that breaking the rules or being dishonest to get it done is worth it to achieve that end. Suppose they do what it takes and it gets done. Is it the end?

It is not the end. Now they have to stay in office. Then there is the opposition to whatever agenda it was that required the person to be elected. Then there is the re-election and so on. In most real like situations there is always a continuation of events. Nothing really ever ends. I suppose that one might be able to think of scenarios where you could have a final end that stands perpetually without needing further support but for most things, it isn’t that way.

I think the reality is that there is only our “means” and something like an “end” is almost an imaginary concept.

 

[Gorgias]

I think the reality is that there is only our “means” and something like an “end” is almost an imaginary concept.

An ‘end’ is an intended goal toward which we might act.

It doesn’t imply a “final end”, or some great grand scheme. Each human act has an end. Often, multiple acts are in service of some other end (I wash my hands to clean them, so I can make some food, so i can eat it, so I can be healthy. Three acts. Multiple ends (cleanliness, food prep, eating / health).

So, no: this statement doesn’t speak solely to “a definitive end.”

 

[JamesATyler]

So, no: this statement doesn’t speak solely to “a definitive end.”

If there is no definitive end, can there be a definitive justification? I think that is my point. There is not one. Does that seem right?

 

[Vico]

… justifies the means. …

A means (directly willed act or omission) that is unjust cannot be justified.

 

[fhansen]

I think saving an innocent life would be a just end in itself, even if that person were to lose that innocence and become a serial killer later in life. But its kind of a moot point with Catholicism anyway as the Church teaches that its never right for a human to commit evil for the sake of bringing about a greater good.

 

[Gorgias]

If there is no definitive end, can there be a definitive justification? I think that is my point. There is not one. Does that seem right?

No. After all, there is a definitive end. This aphorism isn’t talking about it, though. It’s talking about the goals of individual human acts.

(The ultimate goal, of course, is eternal beatitude with God in heaven. That’s what humans were made for.)

 

[JamesATyler]

I think saving an innocent life would be a just end in itself, even if that person were to lose that innocence and become a serial killer later in life. But its kind of a moot point with Catholicism anyway as the Church teaches that its never right for a human to commit evil for the sake of bringing about a greater good.

I agree with that. I was just wondering if the statement can be refuted with logic alone.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree with that. I was just wondering if the statement can be refuted with logic alone.

If that logic assents to the proposition that human life is paramount in its integrity and value, no. If a particular logic doesn’t hold that notion about the value of human life, then yes. It will easily conclude that utilitarianism is correct and the Church’s moral theology is wrong.

(You know what I’d say about that kind of logic, though, right…?)

 

[JamesATyler]

If that logic assents to the proposition that human life is paramount in its integrity and value, no. If a particular logic doesn’t hold that notion about the value of human life, then yes. It will easily conclude that utilitarianism is correct and the Church’s moral theology is wrong.

(You know what I’d say about that kind of logic, though, right…?)

If it can’t be refuted with logic then is it safe to say that it isn’t supported by logic either? It is a value statement?

 

[Gorgias]

If it can’t be refuted with logic then is it safe to say that it isn’t supported by logic either?

“If I am a man, then I am a human person.”

That can’t be “refuted with logic”. Would you say that it “isn’t supported by logic”? No, that doesn’t hold up.

 

[JamesATyler]

“If I am a man, then I am a human person.”

That can’t be “refuted with logic”. Would you say that it “isn’t supported by logic”? No, that doesn’t hold up.

Ok. Not as a general rule then. In the case of the statement in question, I could safely look at that as whether someone values the means more than the end or vice versa. It wasn’t the result of logic. Thanks for helping me.

 

[Freddy]

The argument I have heard about the problem of evil is that God allows bad things to happen because it will lead to a greater good. If that’s not the means justifying some (unknown and unknowable) end then I don’t know what is.

 

[Abrosz]

The argument I have heard about the problem of evil is that God allows bad things to happen because it will lead to a greater good. If that’s not the means justifying some (unknown and unknowable) end then I don’t know what is.

Very well said.

Of course the original expression is incorrect. One cannot separate the means from the end. Under certain circumstances the means AND the end form a justifiable course of action, under some other circumstances it does not. Everything is relative.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The argument I have heard about the problem of evil is that God allows bad things to happen because it will lead to a greater good. If that’s not the means justifying some (unknown and unknowable) end then I don’t know what is.

Very well said.

Of course the original expression is incorrect. One cannot separate the means from the end. Under certain circumstances the means AND the end form a justifiable course of action, under some other circumstances it does not. Everything is relative.

Relative? Zounds. As in somethings that were acceptable in another time and/or another place might be acceptable here and now? But no Catholic is going to admit to that.

Oh, hang on…

• how in the Bible God commands the killing of innocent people
  • those are certainly difficult passages to understand. However, looking at them through purely 21st-century lenses disenfranchises the cultures and people of the narratives. They lived in different times, and were faced with different circumstances, and merely dealing with them as if they were side-by-side with us in the 21st century West does them (and the narratives!) a disservice.

 

[ralfyman]

Here’s something in relation to example given. Assume that not breaking rules means democratic elections and not a dictatorship and what is good involves minimizing poverty and the suffering that it brings, including high crime rates, families torn apart, hunger, and illness.

Several Asian countries, including Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea, went through decades of dictatorship, and it was that which led to economic success for all three and eventually liberalization. For many, the three are seen as stable societies with law-abiding citizens, with one (Singapore) still a dictatorship.

In contrast, the Philippines, the dominant Catholic country in the region, went through, except for a failed dictatorship, U.S.-style liberal democracy, and even coupled with privatization and regulatory capture. As a result of such, economic growth remained weak throughout four decades while its neighbors experienced growth at four to eight times the rate, and today still remains poor in contrast to the rest. It has a high, understated poverty rate (three-fourths of workers are in the informal sector and can’t even get bank accounts), up to 40 pct of children undernourished and experiencing stunted growth, high crime rates, very poor education (it is ranked last in international tests), a corrupt government, three-fourths of economic growth going to only the hundred richest families which control a large portion of the resources of the country, and leaders (from politicians to high-ranking Church officials) who work willingly with the rich.

 

[kapp19]

St. Thomas starts his investigation of ethics with a discussion of the LAST END… If you don’t do this, things will not make any sense (unless your anthropology is wildly different from his).

The last end is intended first, then all other desires are ordered towards it until one is incompatible with it, which would change it.

 

[Latin]

The argument I have heard about the problem of evil is that God allows bad things to happen because it will lead to a greater good. If that’s not the means justifying some (unknown and unknowable) end then I don’t know what is.

CCC 311 For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself. 177
.
CCC 312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, “who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.”
.
CCC 324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
.
God bless

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The argument I have heard about the problem of evil is that God allows bad things to happen because it will lead to a greater good. If that’s not the means justifying some (unknown and unknowable) end then I don’t know what is.

CCC 311 For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself. 177
.
CCC 312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, “who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.”
.
CCC 324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
.
God bless

You might know that I don’t pay attention to religious quotes used as an argument.

 

[Latin]

Freddy, could you please tell us, what is your position on the subject: “The end justifies the means”?

Thank you for your answer in advance.

God Bless

 

[Abrosz]

St. Thomas starts his investigation of ethics with a discussion of the LAST END… If you don’t do this, things will not make any sense (unless your anthropology is wildly different from his).

The anthropology I accept is based on biology. I still reject the kind of approach which surmises that the brain is just the organ to cool the blood.

Humans are both individuals and herd animals. So there can be a conflict between the two aspects.