Unit 4 Comp Civ Essay
Wether "the end justifies the means" is a moral way to go through life or not, is completely dependent on which moral philosophy's magnifying glass you are looking through. Kant's ideas on morals are different from Plato's. The Utilitarianists have a different way of viewing morality than existentialists. Taking a look at each moral philosophy's rules, we will see who believes "the end justifies the means" is moral, and what philosophies believe that it is immoral.
First off is Plato. For Plato, "the end justifies the means" depends on what the "end" is. If the final outcome is knowledge, Plato would say that you should do whatever you want in order to achieve rationalism and in turn freedom. But if the end goal is to act on your desires, Plato would say that it is against your own self interest. This is because Plato's view of self interest is that rationalism is the proper notion of self interest, not your desires. So in this moral philosophy, the moral thing to do is to act in your own rational self interest. As long as that is your goal, then the end completely and utterly justify the means.
Kant also believes in the idea that the moral thing to do is the rational thing to do. He believes in doing ones duty, and that people should put their duty above their own desires. How do you know if you are doing you rational duty? Kant answers this by going back to his idea of universality. In his outline of philosophy, Kant says everyone should come to the same rational conclusion. In his moral philosophy, he asks you the question, "what if everyone did this?", what if everyone lied, cheated, and stole to reach their final goal. The world would be a very unhappy and unsafe place. So for Kant, the end doesn't justify the means, if it doesn't pass the test of "what if everyone did it?". An example would be if you wanted to win the world cup in soccer so you bribe the ref. If everyone did this, the game of soccer would no longer be feasible as it wouldn't be skills that allowed you to win, but rather your money. Following Kant's rule, you know that this is immoral.
Utilitarianists believe the "means" are justified if the "end" will give the maximum amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. For example, if in world war 2, the allies did nothing, then many people would suffer. But if they fought against the Germans, many nazis and Germans in general would still die, but in comparison to if they did nothing, more people would end up living. Most of the world's population v.s. the German population, utilitarianists would save the world population. In the end, if the largest amount of people getting the maximum levels of pleasure is the end goal,than anything that stands in between is completely justifiable.
The most firm believers in "the end justifies the means" are the existentialists. They have no moral values and do whatever they choose. If they want something, they can do whatever they need to do to get there. There are no moral rules whatsoever that bind them. Completely free to accomplish all their goals by any means necessary. The only loophole in existentialism, which is twisting and turning around their rules (or rather lack thereof) that it really isn't even existentialism any more. This being that because everything is up to you, you could create your own rules, that would make the ends no longer justify the means. But there really isn't any existentialism to be found in this loophole, so all in all, according to existentialists the ends justify the means.
For some of these philosophies, there are set guidelines in order to find out what the moral thing to do is, and those guidelines tell you when "the end justifies the means", and when it does not. This is found in utilitarianism and Kant. In others, it depends on what the end goal is, as in Plato, and for existentialists, you can do whatever you want to. All of these philosophies have their own ways of determining if the end justifies the means, but only one can work for an individual, so your own morals are dependent on which moral philosophy you choose to abide by.
Wether "the end justifies the means" is a moral way to go through life or not, is completely dependent on which moral philosophy's magnifying glass you are looking through. Kant's ideas on morals are different from Plato's. The Utilitarianists have a different way of viewing morality than existentialists. Taking a look at each moral philosophy's rules, we will see who believes "the end justifies the means" is moral, and what philosophies believe that it is immoral.
First off is Plato. For Plato, "the end justifies the means" depends on what the "end" is. If the final outcome is knowledge, Plato would say that you should do whatever you want in order to achieve rationalism and in turn freedom. But if the end goal is to act on your desires, Plato would say that it is against your own self interest. This is because Plato's view of self interest is that rationalism is the proper notion of self interest, not your desires. So in this moral philosophy, the moral thing to do is to act in your own rational self interest. As long as that is your goal, then the end completely and utterly justify the means.
Kant also believes in the idea that the moral thing to do is the rational thing to do. He believes in doing ones duty, and that people should put their duty above their own desires. How do you know if you are doing you rational duty? Kant answers this by going back to his idea of universality. In his outline of philosophy, Kant says everyone should come to the same rational conclusion. In his moral philosophy, he asks you the question, "what if everyone did this?", what if everyone lied, cheated, and stole to reach their final goal. The world would be a very unhappy and unsafe place. So for Kant, the end doesn't justify the means, if it doesn't pass the test of "what if everyone did it?". An example would be if you wanted to win the world cup in soccer so you bribe the ref. If everyone did this, the game of soccer would no longer be feasible as it wouldn't be skills that allowed you to win, but rather your money. Following Kant's rule, you know that this is immoral.
Utilitarianists believe the "means" are justified if the "end" will give the maximum amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. For example, if in world war 2, the allies did nothing, then many people would suffer. But if they fought against the Germans, many nazis and Germans in general would still die, but in comparison to if they did nothing, more people would end up living. Most of the world's population v.s. the German population, utilitarianists would save the world population. In the end, if the largest amount of people getting the maximum levels of pleasure is the end goal,than anything that stands in between is completely justifiable.
The most firm believers in "the end justifies the means" are the existentialists. They have no moral values and do whatever they choose. If they want something, they can do whatever they need to do to get there. There are no moral rules whatsoever that bind them. Completely free to accomplish all their goals by any means necessary. The only loophole in existentialism, which is twisting and turning around their rules (or rather lack thereof) that it really isn't even existentialism any more. This being that because everything is up to you, you could create your own rules, that would make the ends no longer justify the means. But there really isn't any existentialism to be found in this loophole, so all in all, according to existentialists the ends justify the means.
For some of these philosophies, there are set guidelines in order to find out what the moral thing to do is, and those guidelines tell you when "the end justifies the means", and when it does not. This is found in utilitarianism and Kant. In others, it depends on what the end goal is, as in Plato, and for existentialists, you can do whatever you want to. All of these philosophies have their own ways of determining if the end justifies the means, but only one can work for an individual, so your own morals are dependent on which moral philosophy you choose to abide by.
No comments:
Post a Comment