The popular saying "the end justifies the means" is the philosophy that it does not matter the actions or methods you employ as long as your intentions/goals are good or right. Simply put, it's OK to do the wrong things for the right reasons. When people use this expression, they are usually seeking to justify a wrong action by simply pointing out an outcome they believe to be positive. So, do whatever you find necessary irrespective of weather it's immoral or illegal, just make sure that the end result is positive. Interesting huh?
There is one simple problem I have with this philosophy: who determines if the outcome is good or noble. I believe that if given the opportunity, human beings will find a way of justifying/rationalizing every atrocity they commit. Besides, an end that may appear justifiable in your eyes may not appear so in another's. It is for this reason that every society has some form of rules and regulations to keep the actions of it's members in check. I always say that if left unregulated, humanity will eventually become it's own undoing.
Now consider these three men, let's call them Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C. So Mr. A goes to rob a bank and decides to donate the money to support an orphanage. He argues that people have made enough money to save in banks while some innocent children are starving in an orphanage. Mr. B lies on his resume in order to get a good job. he then goes ahead to justify his actions by claiming that the salary he will earn from the job will enable him take good care of his family. Mr. C lies under oath in a court of law just to make sure that a murderer does not get away with his crime.
Now, think about this carefully. Mr. A is unarguably doing the right thing by helping out poor kids. But for all you know, some hardworking young man somewhere was saving his monies in that bank to enable him pay his mother's hospital bills. Or maybe, a father was about to withdraw his life's savings the following day to pay his daughters school fees. So you see, it's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. For Mr. B, he could simply be denying genuinely qualified people from getting a job by lying on his resume. For Mr. C, he might have been perjuring himself, but doing so to enforce the law seem like the right thing to do.
So maybe, depending on the means and the goals that are targeted, the end can sometimes justify the means. But let me be quick to say this, by our nature, we desire freedom, complete freedom to do what we see fit. People want to be left alone to drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, pop pills, run a red light, ride without a crush helmet, have sex on the street, play loud music, and so on and so forth. But we often forget that our actions affect others. A drunk driver, may for example, hit and kill a 3 year old girl. So yes, actions must have consequences, even if the intentions were noble.
You can share your thoughts on this subject matter by leaving behind a comment.
BY @osmansnr from #steemitghana.
Thanks For Stopping By.
Feel Free To Follow My Blog, Upvote or Resteem this Post.
your bank analogy is flawed. if someone robs a bank it does not effect the account holders because in the majority of countries banks are insured by the central institution of that country. and if its not insured then you should probably not use that bank.
The heart of this saying is that man has to make tough choices and that there is no such thing as evil. people simply percieve things differently and we all have our reasons for what we do.
the Ends and means is saying are you willing to be accountable to the inquiry of your actions after you have done them.
To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:
Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check this post out for more information.
You have a minor grammatical mistake in the following sentence:
It should be its own instead of it's own.This post has received a 19.34 % upvote from @boomerang.
Nice post
thanks bro