The Ends & Means

So, sometimes the means can justify the ends.

If so, when? Who decides?

 

When the alternative to the end is worse than the means to that end?

 

“The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.”

- Aldous Huxley

 

I think this question is subjective. It depends on one's ability to empathize, or one's ability to detach themselves from such emotions, or both (if they aren't just exactly the same anyway).

For me, the ends don't always justify the means. I'm just not comfortable playing the role of Steve Jobs or Michael Jordan (just examples). Playing manipulative mind games is just not something I'm terribly comfortable doing. It doesn't come naturally. And so the loftiness of the goal isn't going to justify it....for me.

Another example is Don King. For him, the end always always justifies the means. If taking ten million dollars from an impoverished African country and putting it in the pockets of Muhammad Ali and George Foreman is the means to the end of him becoming the top dog in a game, which will result in him being wealthy and powerful for years and years, then so be it. And the fact that Don King made the Rumble in the Jungle happen is absolutely amazing and its one of the best sports moments in history, and so I can't even say he's wrong -- I can't say that in those particular circumstances the ends do not justify the means. Objectively, I'm not sure that there's an answer. And that's why I think it has to be judged from the unique lens of each individual.

Or maybe my answer is a cop out. I'm not sure.

My answer, for me, is "Not always, but sometimes, and probably more than not."

P.S. - And I'll cosign what you said below about the question itself in that it is certainly not ambiguous, just broad, and intentionally so. Deez peeps saying otherwise are whack.

 

Or the end of the means.

 

Right, the ends.

 

the simplest answer is "yes, unless there are ethical considerations." or, "yes, within the rules of the endeavor."

to move the football eighty yards, any plays which are allowed by the rules may be called and executed.

easy to decide when rules are black and white. the grey area is ethics.

and then it all just depends. at some point we talk about honor and nobility.

or flipping a coin.

 

What about the medians and mode?

 

Is that a real quote?

It's a stupid real quote if so. The means employed determine the nature of the ends produced? Nah. Not how it works.

Here's how it works. I first have an end I want to accomplish. As an example, let's say my end is to "go balls deep on some cute girl I see at a coffee shop who may or may not be flirting with some other dude." There is literally an endless* number of means that I may rely upon to achieve that end. The end justifies many many of these means. You can think of many examples.

The end, in my view, would not justify all means. For example, it probably wouldn't justify:
-waiting till girl walks out with dude and then shooting dude in the face and raping the girl, or
-killing every male on the planet and then putting moves on her with confidence that she can't do any better.

The means employed don't determine the ends. The ends are determined, and the means decided upon.


*pun not intended

 

The former should not be crossed over if it's a solid line.
The latter was a bit before my time but does feature a video of a man walking up a mountain dressed up as a king, which is notable.

[video=youtube;m0AKJMGxwpE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0AKJMGxwpE[/video]

 

what about Natrone Means?

 

What about Idi Amin's means?

 

Or Albert Means.

You have to respect a man that contributed to landing both Kentucky and Bama on probation. Albert Means Business.

 

And yet, many and many of the means may fail, with the end result a failure, thus the nature of the ends, the result, was determined by the means--for if a different means was applied, the end result may not have been failure.

If we take that the ends can only be a success, the means employed may still affect the nature of the ends, in that some means may result in slightly more interesting ends. Maybe she's a little more freaky, but the means to achieve that end may be different than the means to achieve just any end.

 

I would argue that accomplishment of the end intended is implicit when we say "the end justified the means". If the end isn't achieved, the means aren't justified.

Assume my end is dunking a basketball, and my means to that end is waiting until somebody is a few feet in front of the basket bent over on one knee to tie their shoelaces and then jumping off that person's back and up for the slam.

If I do that and I dunk the ball, the end arguably justified the means because I feel good about myself and I'm sure it looked awesome and now I've got a story to tell and that totally justifies whatever temporary pain was experience by the guy whose back I used as a platform.

But if I do that and clank the ball against the front of the rim and fall awkwardly onto my ass while some guy catches it all on his iphone and posts to youtube, then the end certainly did not justify the means because it wasn't achieved.

This is more difficult to articulate than I thought, but I think another way of putting it is that the end has to be the end you intended or it really isn't an end.

 

Endless means.