Does the End Justify the Means? Essay

The ending well(p)ify the elbow room is a philosophical maxim popularized by Niccolo Machiavelli during the renaissance era. This maxim is conjectural to reassert the moions of a leader or what Machiavelli calls the Prince, to do whatever is in his power in so faraway as the end/s justifies the way of feel of attaining it. Machiavelli highlighted that the end that a Prince or a leader should snap on is the maintenance of his regime, authority or power. This theory is often ridiculous as a standard precept usually by a few who rules a group of people, a community or a nation.They always believe that what they are doing redounds to the benefit of the majority. This few will non accept that what they have through is vileness plain if it produced candid results for more people. History will tell us that m both events in the ultimo have gained favorable comments from some individuals but different from the point of batch of the majority. Take the case of Hiroshima and Na gasaki bombing by the Ameri en mixturele offices during the war to overturn the morale of the invading Japanese forces in the Far East, which resulted to a life story tragic memory for thousands of Japanese victims (Walzer, 2004).If we are patch of that era, perhaps we would evidently say that it was the only way to stop the Japanese aggressors. For the Japanese and its allies, it was an evil act for the Americans to involve innocent Japanese civilians in the war. Leaping prior to the present era where people have become broad-minded and peace-oriented, many Americans have condemned the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a number of big organizations have initiated moves to heal Americas image to the world peculiarly to the Japanese people. exactly there are also sectors including the military who believe that the war would non have ended if the bombing was not done. Does the end justify the mover in this case? Certainly not according to Christine Smith in her denomina tion entitled, The End does not justify the Means, committing any acts of evil, regardless of any wedded circumstances, is always con lieured wrong. This writer may be right in saying this except that she fails to manifest the exact definition of evil in her statement. When the national interest is at risk to preserve democracy, the military is given a free-hand by the government to thwart rebellion.After a serial publication of democratic process with maximum tolerance and the rebels adhere to their hard-line principle of a coup detat, the military has the ultimate option to exercising arms. On the side of the relatives and advocates of the aggressive movement this could be evil, but on the side of the government and those against undemocratic process of government take-over, this could be reasonable. lets analyze another case, the downing of Korean Airlines Flight 007 in Russia way back 1983 which carried 269 passengers including the crew where most of the victims were Americans and Koreans.It was argued by Russia that the plane go against its descentspace, with a hint that it was a spy plane, which led to its ultimate closing to shoot it down, while the U. S. quickly denounced the brutal act of Russia, justifying the cause of air space violation as an aeronautical miscalculation of the pilot. As far as the Russians are concerned, the end reassert the means, but on the side of the Americans and Koreans, that was an act of terrorism. In this particular case, the element of ideology has to be refuted. plot of land the brutal act was considered by the Russians as a way to get over any threat to their ideology, they did it in any way possible even if the world would condemn it as an evil act. Russians believed that the tragic end has justified the means involving the interest of the Soviet Union. Given that it was an aeronautical error to defame airspace, Russia should have instructed the pilot of the ill-fated airplane to total an emergency arrive for investigation concerning the alleged espionage instead of downing it, considering that it was a passenger aircraft and not a military one.Even assuming that it was a language obstruction between pilots that could have been the cause of the immediate military response, still it can never be justified. On the part of the victims relatives, the incident was intentionally done and Russians must be stiffly penalized. For a few who ruled the military, it was part of an exercise. For communist allies, it was the right thing to do, but for the rest of the world, it would be remembered as a massacre in the sky. Same is true for any kind of religion which has a great concern for human life the act was inspired by the devil.In cases of tortures, human rights abuses, military actions and capital punishments, the end may not justify the means. Even if the ultimate result is good for the majority or even to a nation, if the means was done in a vicious way, then, that could never be justified. Bu t for soldiers who are diligent in war, it is entirely a different philosophy. A soldier has to follow orders from his superiors to protect the sovereignty of a nation, thats his duty. When he goes to the jungle in search for the enemies, he carries with him a mandate from his superiors.But when he is discover there to engage in combat, a different scenario occurs. He becomes in the beginning concerned about his own life and to return to his family alive, the mandate becomes secondary. genuinely few want to be a hero and much lesser to be friendly with the enemies. A soldier is a military machine, thats how he was honed and oriented he has to kill the antagonist before the enemy kills him. He has to execute a rapid action if his life is endangered. Thats the game of war, thats the game of chance if he wants to survive.But if a soldier is engaged in killing innocent people just because he could not identify the enemy exactly, then, his action does not justify his motive. If he t ortures an enemy or a group of people in search for truth, it can be held unjust. If he is trigger-happy and involved in mass execution because he fails to identify the enemies exactly, he must be condemned and be subject to a court-martial. There can never be an excuse for killing people at an instant without concrete take the stand backed up by reliable logistics, and in so doing, his moral sense must be directly involved.But how do we gauge and monitoring device his professionalism in the battlefield? A soldier is dispatched with a troop and a leader who keeps track of all his moves. There is a saying that pestilential odor will always come out in the open, especially when the victims relatives submit a complaint with corresponding evidence. lets take a look at Teresa M. Hudocks article entitled, The End Does Not Justify The Means. She said that the best use of a credible perfectionist is one who does not use military force and violence in any given circumstances, even in sel f-defence, and he must be an advocate of human rights.This might be an perfect scenario. War or no war, when life is at stake munificence will be a subject for legal arguments especially when self-defense is in question. No person will allow others to take his life without doing anything except for born-heroes. Therefore, justifying the end by the course of action taken depends on how people look at it and it varies on the standpoint of different sectors of the society. In essence, the end does not always justify the means.Nonetheless, there are organic instances or supreme emergencies wherein the ends bring about the greater good which justifies the means of attaining it.ReferencesHudock, T. M. The End does not Jusifies the Means. Retrieved on January 26, 2009, from http//www. usc. edu/dept/LAS/ir/calis/pdfs/171w. PDF Machiavelli, N. (1515). The Prince. http//www. constitution. org/mac/prince00. htm Smith, C. (2008). The End does not Justify the Means. Retrieved on January 25, 2 009, from http//www. nolanchart. Com/ article4573. html Walzer, M. (2004). Emergency Ethics. New Haven and London. Yale University Press. P. 33-55