ForumsWEPR"End justifies the means"- Machiavelli

16 11637
Blackwatch007
offline
Blackwatch007
13 posts
Nomad

Hi everyone, I am a new user and I just thought of this interesting debate that I read from Machiavelli's work "The Prince". It is quite a philosophical and slightly controversial work where he describes what a Prince should do and how he should ignore his morality in order to defend a country as well as his other duties.

So I wanted to hear a few opinions from here and there about whether the ultimate goal should/must justify the means whatever controversial/dangerous they are.

  • 16 Replies
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

Well, that's an interesting topic.

My answer to the question presented would be "No. The end doesn't justify the means".

Imagine such a situation. Where you have the option of doing something that may improve the live(s) of you or everyone close to you, but will prove controversial and/or risky short-term.

Making the choice of following through with this or not raises a simple question: "If you are faced with such an option, who are you to make the choice yourself?"

Can you truly pit your opinion against that of those close to you without even asking because you believe it will prove better for them on the long run? Maybe if you are a father of a very young child, or someone who has no hope of understanding your choice. But even then it is doubtful what kind of means you must use (even a child can understand danger), to achieve the end in mind.

So, by extension, do you truly have the right to choose a risky/controversial option, to others and yourself because the ultimate goal you have in mind is more important? If it is truly dangerous the ones involved deserve a saying, to say the least.

Even if something you are planning is dangerous to yourself, but not involving other people, you are still not inclined to make the choice yourself. There are people directly or indirectly connected with you, like it or not (this is where it reminds me of the "Suicide" question. It is similar in some respects). So, how can you place yourself in danger, or choose to take controversial actions? Won't they affect those people as well?

GhostOfNinja
offline
GhostOfNinja
600 posts
Farmer

On a personal level, I think Doombreed would be right, in that we always need to think about how our actions affect others. Machiavelli's argument, though, is that a prince or any other government leader has the RESPONSIBILITY and DUTY to make choices that could impact the entire population of the country, and to make the choice that will best set up the country as a whole for future success, even at the cost of short-term risk or controversy. So in that regard, the ends do justify the means for someone entrusted with the power and responsibility to make difficult decisions. Morality shouldn't get in the way for such people.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

Machiavelli's argument, though, is that a prince or any other government leader has the RESPONSIBILITY and DUTY to make choices that could impact the entire population of the country, and to make the choice that will best set up the country as a whole for future success, even at the cost of short-term risk or controversy. So in that regard, the ends do justify the means for someone entrusted with the power and responsibility to make difficult decisions. Morality shouldn't get in the way for such people.

This is exactly the reason we have democracy. Because morality does and should get in the way. Was it moral to launch 2 nuclear bombs to Japan in 1945? Even if I agree that it saved the lives of many US Soldiers, the moral issue still remains.

You have the responsibility? Yes. But still should you make the choice alone? No. That's why there is an entire government and not just one man.

Blackwatch007
offline
Blackwatch007
13 posts
Nomad

Thank you for the reply.

Well I guess I will take the opposition side so to advance the debate.

Imagine these kinds of scenarios where you got to run a country and hence you got to suppress the rebels, in this case the end does justify the means for the sake of the whole country.This serves as a basic example that in some cases end does justify the means as a matter of necessary evil which is what Machiavelli is mostly talking about in his book.

One of the fundamental questions that I have asked myself is that whether our world was based on the morality or not, so in this case our world had advanced further on and that morality is only a luxury as otherwise one has to take impossible choices which always exist.

This is exactly the reason we have democracy. Because morality does and should get in the way
.

But then democracy had never existed before and our world was based on the dictatorship where for the sake of the country the leader would kill whomever he needed and would start a war in terms of protecting own interests.

I agree on one aspect with Doombreed that morality is important however only nowadays due to the fact that the global politics had evolved and that there is an international law, however the fundamental aspect of this world was the survival of the fittest and ignoring morality which would otherwise come at the expense of one's life; one of the basic principles was to kill or to survive.

(Sorry I am not sure how to quote)

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

The end does not justify the means, because actions are what counts. We have morality for a reason, discarding it in the assumed interest of many opens doors to any and all abuses. Especially if you are responsible for a whole country, you are that much more responsible for your actions.

The argument that 'the end justifies the means', apart from being the ultimate excuse for anything, assumes that there is no moral option. I disagree and claim that there are always moral options. If you have no moral options left, maybe your preceding actions were not moral to begin with. You should always be able to justify the means in a moral way so as not to compromise yourself, which is particularly important if your actions will be judged by the people. A good leader will be able to count on the support of the people.

Blackwatch007
offline
Blackwatch007
13 posts
Nomad

If you have no moral options left, maybe your preceding actions were not moral to begin with.

I really like that bit, quite encompassing. However, do my actions have to be moral to begin with? During the Imperial era these actions were not moralistic but the conflict was what allowed us to develop and progress in the world at a coat of our morality which however we are now able to enforce.

GhostOfNinja
offline
GhostOfNinja
600 posts
Farmer

A couple key points here. First, Doombreed and HahiHa are operating under the assumption that we're talking about a democracy here. But "The Prince" was written as a guide for authoritarian rulers, meaning that we are in fact talking about a scenario in which one man needs to decide for the many.

But more importantly, even in a democracy the ends sometimes justify the means. Dropping the two atomic bombs is actually a perfect example of this; even though we're in a democracy, we went with what many perceive as the "immoral" decision. But that ended up benefiting our country, as we saved American lives and probably actually Japanese lives as well by circumventing the need for a direct invasion of Japan. HahiHa claims that there are always moral options. That's true, but those options aren't always the best options, and that's what this debate comes down to: should the leader of a country choose the moral option or the best one? My argument is that they not only should choose the best one, they have an obligation to.

Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
359 posts
Blacksmith

There are two ways to look at this dilemma, IMO. The first, and most obvious apparently, is to take the blanket statement of "the ends justify the means" and analyze how well it works in a practical setting. As everyone has already pointed out, it doesn't. Killing every human on the planet is clearly not a justifiable means of bringing about world peace (possibly the most extreme scenario for this moral dilemma). Since there are no conditions placed upon the statement that would eliminate such an extreme example and the example is not justifiable the statement is unarguably false.

Alternatively, you can look at the statement in context. For Machiavelli's The Prince that means abandoning personal morality to do whatever it takes to gain power. The entire book is about how to gain and hold power over people, but it in no way advocates tyranny or cruelty. Machiavelli states that it is best to be both feared and loved, but if you cannot be both then it is better to be feared. He also says that when taking power through cruel and immoral acts one should identify all of the wicked things necessary to gain power and perform them all in one stroke so that you will never have to do another wicked thing for the entirety of your reign. A complete lack of morality would turn the people against their ruler, but most importantly is the fact that it's a ruler's duty to put the good of his people above all else and sometimes that requires immoral actions.

A couple key points here. First, Doombreed and HahiHa are operating under the assumption that we're talking about a democracy here. But "The Prince" was written as a guide for authoritarian rulers, meaning that we are in fact talking about a scenario in which one man needs to decide for the many.

Actually, The Prince only uses an authoritarian &quotrincedom" as an example. The concepts are supposed to be something that can be used in any type of government including republics and theocracies. He even analyzes the Catholic Church as an Ecclesiastical Princedom fighting for power alongside Italy which he describes as a dying princedom that has failed to hold onto its power.

GhostOfNinja
offline
GhostOfNinja
600 posts
Farmer

Since there are no conditions placed upon the statement that would eliminate such an extreme example and the example is not justifiable the statement is unarguably false.

I wouldn't go that far. "Unarguably false" implies that there is no scenario in which the statement is true, and we've already established that the ends do sometimes justify the means. We could even go with an extreme example on the opposite spectrum; if you could bring about world peace by snapping your fingers, I don't think many people would argue that the means were unjustifiable. So it's more fair to say that "the ends justify the means" is sometimes true as a blanket statement, not unarguably false.

it's a ruler's duty to put the good of his people above all else and sometimes that requires immoral actions.

Agreed.

The concepts are supposed to be something that can be used in any type of government including republics and theocracies.

I'll just steal this as further evidence that Machiavelli's statement is perfectly applicable in a democracy ^^

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Here's another point to consider. Notice that the claim is about justification - not moral obligation. In other words, we might be morally justified in doing X, even though X might not have been the morally correct action.

As an analogy, consider a justified belief. This is some proposition which you have good reason to believe. Maybe someone you trust told you, or a typically reliable expert. But now suppose this belief is false. The belief is justified, but it falls short of knowledge since it's false.

In the same way, perhaps a moral action can be justified. Suppose that I see someone struggling to get a heavy package into their van, so I help them. As it turns out, the person I helped was an art thief and the package was a piece of art they were stealing. In this case, we might think that my action was justified, even though it turned out to not be the morally correct one.

So, in this way, the consequences of an intention or action are providing justification for that intention or action. It's also important that we don't cross-cut these notions. The consequences of a particular intention shouldn't then used to justify the act. Suppose I intend to help an old lady across the street. I do this by building a slingshot and shooting her across. My intentions - to help the old lady - are distinct from my actions. The end result, therefore, needs to be parsed. My actions aren't justified by the ends, since the end result of my action was terrible. That much seems right. But my intention to help might be justified, so long as we can keep that separate from my terrible action.

I think you'll find that looking through some of the standard counterexamples to consequentialism in general often rely on conflating this important distinction between intentions and actions.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

First, Doombreed and HahiHa are operating under the assumption that we're talking about a democracy here.

No, I fail to see how this would be the underlying assumption of my argument. When I say that the leader's actions will be judged by the people, I didn't restrict this to votes.

HahiHa claims that there are always moral options. That's true, but those options aren't always the best options, and that's what this debate comes down to: should the leader of a country choose the moral option or the best one? My argument is that they not only should choose the best one, they have an obligation to.

Precisely, and my argument is that if they can reach the same goal in a moral way, even if it takes longer, this is in any case preferable. What good does it do the people if by choosing the best means to achieve a goal for the country, you have to act in a gruesome way?
GhostOfNinja
offline
GhostOfNinja
600 posts
Farmer

Precisely, and my argument is that if they can reach the same goal in a moral way, even if it takes longer, this is in any case preferable. What good does it do the people if by choosing the best means to achieve a goal for the country, you have to act in a gruesome way?

What about when speed is of the essence? Or when the moral option isn't just slower, but less effective?

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

What about when speed is of the essence? Or when the moral option isn't just slower, but less effective?

How fast will you have to be? In a greater level (i.e. affair of the state), you will probably have the time to ask advisors, friends members of the government, experts etc..

In the case where action needs to be taken very fast (i.e. in a matter of minutes or seconds), you don't necessarily have to pick the immoral option. That is because the moral compass of most people is very capable of assesing a situation and categorizing possible options judging by their morality quickly. You may not have the time to consult with other people, but you will most likely know which option is the moral one, and which is the immoral one.

As for the effectiveness, it doesn't really matter. An immoral option maybe more effective, but it still is, well, no better way to say it, immoral. The difference between the effectiveness of the options would have to be massive to even consider the immoral option (in my opinion) and when the difference is that massive, it also comes with a suitably massive difference in morality.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

What about when speed is of the essence? Or when the moral option isn't just slower, but less effective?

Consider the case of the battle of Alesia. When the Roman siege depleted their resources, the Gauls cast out women and children from the oppidum, hoping the Romans would let them through. This was not the case however and they starved miserably just outside the walls. The decision to cast out women and children and keep only the warriors seems like an effective solution to reduce the resource issue, at least until reinforcement arrived; and it had to be decided relatively quickly. Trying to link this to what Moe said, you could say the intention (resisting the invaders) was justified, but the means were poorly chosen (many died unnecessarily) and ultimately not justified by the end (knowing Alesia ended up losing the battle anyway).
GhostOfNinja
offline
GhostOfNinja
600 posts
Farmer

How fast will you have to be? In a greater level (i.e. affair of the state), you will probably have the time to ask advisors, friends members of the government, experts etc..

I'm not talking about the speed it takes to make the decision, I'm talking about the speed it takes to carry out the action and reach the end goal.

As for the effectiveness, it doesn't really matter. An immoral option maybe more effective, but it still is, well, no better way to say it, immoral. The difference between the effectiveness of the options would have to be massive to even consider the immoral option (in my opinion) and when the difference is that massive, it also comes with a suitably massive difference in morality.

Why should morality be valued over effectiveness?

Consider the case of the battle of Alesia.

Doesn't really apply; in this case the ends clearly don't justify the means, but that's only because the result was a failure and wouldn't justify anything. It would be a better example if Alesia had won a Pyrrhic victory and we had to discuss whether it was actually worth it.

Showing 1-15 of 16