grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
I could try to claim this is my own attempt at answering the question raised in the OP, but I guess many would see through my deception, (aiming to make myself look better than I am, being the not so laudable objective too!).
The following is an abridged version of a sixteen year old's efforts to answer the question posed:
"Someone may justify lying in a job interview, because they consider the benefits to them, to their family and society as a whole of getting the job. This example reminds me of a Leo Tolstoy quote – ‘To sin is a human business, to justify sins is a devilish business’ – To lie is to compromise your integrity: what else would you lie about? How would you justify it?
The other important issue with the statement that the ends justify the means, is, something pointed out by the Author of dystopia brave new world Aldous Huxley – ‘The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced’. – a utopia brought about by oppression of the population shouldn’t be considered a utopia.
A notable consequentialist was Jeremy Bentham – the fundamental axiom of his philosophy being the principle of achieving the ‘greatest happiness in the greatest number of people’. His philosophy led to the betterment of many lives – the abolition of slavery and the expanding of the voting franchise to women and the poor. However, utilitarianism also led to the large welfare state which we know today, some argue that this is responsible for the breakdown of the family structure and many other societal issues.
Another basic criticism of utilitarianism is the problem that it is impossible to quantify happiness, therefore how is the trade off necessary to maximise happiness calculated, but perhaps more importantly: by whom is it being calculated? Is it morally right to give the power of redistributing happiness to the state? Even a benevolent dictator could do what is just for the society as a whole, that may include doing something that is unjust to the individual.
So do the ends justify the means?
Well… I believe it is a fine line – A popular phrase is ‘you’ve got to break some eggs to make an omelette’ and to an extent that is true, but I believe the way to prevent the means from getting out of hand is to always consider the effect on the individual, rather than just considering the society as an abstract concept. If a small violent act saves a life, I would say it was justified, but lying for financial gain would not be."
The following is an abridged version of a sixteen year old's efforts to answer the question posed:
"Someone may justify lying in a job interview, because they consider the benefits to them, to their family and society as a whole of getting the job. This example reminds me of a Leo Tolstoy quote – ‘To sin is a human business, to justify sins is a devilish business’ – To lie is to compromise your integrity: what else would you lie about? How would you justify it?
The other important issue with the statement that the ends justify the means, is, something pointed out by the Author of dystopia brave new world Aldous Huxley – ‘The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced’. – a utopia brought about by oppression of the population shouldn’t be considered a utopia.
A notable consequentialist was Jeremy Bentham – the fundamental axiom of his philosophy being the principle of achieving the ‘greatest happiness in the greatest number of people’. His philosophy led to the betterment of many lives – the abolition of slavery and the expanding of the voting franchise to women and the poor. However, utilitarianism also led to the large welfare state which we know today, some argue that this is responsible for the breakdown of the family structure and many other societal issues.
Another basic criticism of utilitarianism is the problem that it is impossible to quantify happiness, therefore how is the trade off necessary to maximise happiness calculated, but perhaps more importantly: by whom is it being calculated? Is it morally right to give the power of redistributing happiness to the state? Even a benevolent dictator could do what is just for the society as a whole, that may include doing something that is unjust to the individual.
So do the ends justify the means?
Well… I believe it is a fine line – A popular phrase is ‘you’ve got to break some eggs to make an omelette’ and to an extent that is true, but I believe the way to prevent the means from getting out of hand is to always consider the effect on the individual, rather than just considering the society as an abstract concept. If a small violent act saves a life, I would say it was justified, but lying for financial gain would not be."
Last edited:
) 
