I do agree that it depends on the situation, though if you allow the end to justify the means to a degree, there will always be room to do that no matter how bad the means are.
Let's move on the disussion. We have so far established that there is no objective view on the matter, that it's down to every individuals beliefs/values, that the degree of selfishness/sociopathy in a person determines how far they're willing to ignore the means in order to get results.
Now we get to the interesting part, the results obtained are not isolated from the means, the end is not the only reward here, however it's easy to think that way when you don't care about the path you took. There is no pride or happiness in the end itself, even if those aren't your goals. The fact remains something motivated you to go after your goal in the first place which means you cared about it.
However, when you ignore the how, you demonstrate that you don't actually care about the goal, you in essence betray yourself.
The same way you'd cheat on all your highschool exams, if you don't care about the goal then it means you need to find something you do care about and pursue that, because the reward comes from the means, not the end.
Yep, because if someone cares so much about the goal they wouldn't ignore the process unless they on some level don't actually care about the goal.
Building on the last example, someone who cheats on an exam is someone who isn't interested in learning the subject(the true goal/means), but only wants to get a passing grade(the results/end). Someone who cares would be into the subject and cheating would never even cross their minds.
i don't really get the question. Can't anything fall under 'means' when it comes to an 'end'?
I mean you gave the cheating to get a scholarship as an example of a means but not cheating is also a means which still leads to the same end. Without any specific framework you can never say whether it's justified or not.
The saying/ phrase itself has negative connotations but given the fact that everything we do is technically a means to any given end, without the aforementioned framework, there's no real need for justification.
i don't really get the question. Can't anything fall under 'means' when it comes to an 'end'?
I mean you gave the cheating to get a scholarship as an example of a means but not cheating is also a means which still leads to the same end. Without any specific framework you can never say whether it's justified or not.
The saying/ phrase itself has negative connotations but given the fact that everything we do is technically a means to any given end, without the aforementioned framework, there's no real need for justification.
Not cheating is also a means and it might lead to the same end. However, we're talking about when a person does something unethical or immoral to get to a certain end. Assuming the end in mind was achieved, how much does it justify the means?
The only time such a question would be asked is if the person did something bad, that's why the phrase has negative connotations, otherwise it's never questioned.
