The answer to this question depends on what the ends or goals are and what means are being used to achieve them. If the goals are good and noble, and the means we use to achieve them are also good and noble, then yes, the ends do justify the means. But that’s not what most people mean when they use the expression. Most use it as an excuse to achieve their goals through any means necessary, no matter how immoral, illegal or unpleasant the means may be. What the expression usually means is something like “It doesn’t matter how you get what you want as long as you get it.”

https://www.gotquestions.org/ends-justify-means.html

What a great question

I think the answer is (No)

Why.?

If you want money can you Kill some one to take these money?

I think yes, nowadays yes

When ? mostly

The answer to this question depends on what the ends or goals are and what means are being used to achieve them. If the goals are good and noble, and the means we use to achieve them are also good and noble, then yes, the ends do justify the means. But that’s not what most people mean when they use the expression. Most use it as an excuse to achieve their goals through any means necessary, no matter how immoral, illegal or unpleasant the means may be. What the expression usually means is something like “It doesn’t matter how you get what you want as long as you get it.”

https://www.gotquestions.org/ends-justify-means.html

the ends ever justify the means some times .

Of course not. However it seems to be the number one rule in today's political world ..

yes

Many people give whole importance only to the end (result). By what means the result is achieved is not important to them. If any unfair mean can give the targeted result, they are ready to follow such means.

Some other people give most importance to the means. They are not ready to get targeted result by any unfair mean.

It varies from man to man as per their ethics and Principles of life.

Personally, I support the ideology of second type of people.

Sometimes

No, at all.

sometimes yes , sometimes no

regards

Of course no , because many and many ends need bad means to achieve.

I agree with Mohamed's answer. I see the same behavior in some students who would plagiarize to get the work done well. If you don't take the time to check their work, you can be fooled into thinking that the work deserves as A.

Best regards,

Debra

Sometimes the end justifies the means

Don't make me confess Prof !!!! All my software development is "end justifying my means !!!" (all all , I will see to it that stuff work )

Rest , none I am a very private person !!! I do not want care for anybody to follow me neither do I want any gratification (none none at all )

End justify means in many respects. In research, it is true. It can be started so beautifully and if it is not pursued in diligence, ends up being trash.

For policy implementation, if the policies are good, you don't need to see a long term end to realise its feasibility. In such a case, the Ghanaian proverb is true 'A grand carnival can be seen right from the morning'. Best regards

Dickson Adom

It depends on the kinds of means used. If the means are forbidden it is NO. Not all means may have the same ruling as the results. Furthermore, they must be permissible in themselves.

Dear Remi I do not agree with your vision. I understand through your comment that all depends on the obtained results. If it is good it's OK if not it's not OK. Which means we focus just on the results. That's right?

I don't think that the end always justifies the means. An example: Even when the end is supreme, we would not justify the means that gives a damage to other people.

Do the ends ever justify the means? I hope and trust, almost always! Does earning your university degree(s) justify long hours of study? I hope so! Does designing a safe machine justify spending more time at it than one might have initially estimated? Again, I hope so!

The only examples where one might question this is in examples involving illegal, immoral, or even unhealthy means (like, so much stress to do the job right that you develop an ulcer). But clearly, these have to be the exceptions, not the norm.

In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the saying, "the end justifies the means", meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. For example, He's campaigning with illegal funds on the theory that if he wins the election the end will justify the means, or The officer tricked her into admitting her guilt—the end sometimes justifies the means.

www.dictionary.com/browse/end-justifies-the-means--the

Such a difficult question, right?

Let me take an example from the entertainment world. Throughout her career, Madonna (the singer) has apparently changed the lives of many young girls, as witnessed by her fans' clubs etc., giving them variously a sense of empowerment, music to dream to, a role model, etc.etc.

Yet in her way to the top, Madonna is reputed to have been absolutely ruthless - using and discarding without a second thought people, "friends" and boyfriends based only on whether and how they could, or not, further her career. The instant their usefulness to her career was done, is the instant they were dumped, or at least so go the rumors.

There is no doubt that career-making in this business is cutthroat and merciless, and that ruthlessness in reaching career goals is mandatory to strike it big. There is no doubt that she enhanced the lives of many young girls.

Did the end goal justify the ruthlessness? Who can judge? Perhaps judgment is not even appropriate, perhaps things are just the way they are, in the small & the broad sweeps of history?

The answer to this question depends on what the end or goal is, and what means are used to reach them. If the goals are good and noble, and the means we use to achieve them are also good and noble, then yes, the end justifies the means. But that's not what most people mean when they use that expression. Most use it as an excuse to reach their goals through whatever means they need, no matter how immoral, illegal or unpleasant those means may be. What that expression usually means is something like "No matter how you get what you want, in tango you get it."

"The end justifies the means," usually involves doing something wrong to achieve a positive end and justifying evil by pointing out a good outcome. An example would be lying on a resume to get a good job, and justifying the lie by saying that higher income will allow the liar to provide more adequately for his or her family. Another might be to justify the abortion of a baby to save the mother's life. Lying and taking the life of an innocent person is equally immoral, but providing for one's family and saving a woman's life is morally correct. So where's the dividing line?

The dilemma of the end/media is a popular scenario in discussions about ethics. Usually, the question is something like,"If you could save the world by murdering someone, would you do it? If the answer is "yes", then the morally correct result justifies the use of an immoral means to achieve it. But there are three different aspects to be considered in such a situation: the morality of action, the morality of the result, and the morality of the person executing the action. In this situation, the action (murder) is clearly immoral, as is the murderer. But saving the world is a good and moral outcome. Or is it? What kind of world is saved if murderers are allowed to decide when and if a murder is justified and then released? Or does the murderer face punishment for his crime in the world he has saved? And the world that was saved is justified by taking the life of the one who has just saved them?

From a biblical perspective, of course, what is lacking in this discussion is the character of God, God's law, and God's providence. For we know that God is good, holy, righteous, merciful and upright, and those who bear His name must reflect His character (1 Peter 1:15-16). Murder, lying, stealing, and all forms of sinful behavior are the expression of man's sin nature, not God's nature. For Christians whose nature has been transformed by Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), there is no justification for immoral behavior, regardless of the motive or outcome for it. From this holy and perfect God, we receive a law that reflects His attributes (Psalm 19:7; Romans 7:12). The Ten Commandments make it clear that murdering, adulterating, stealing, lying and coveting is unacceptable in God's eyes, and He does not make an "exception clause" for motivation or rationalization.

When the means are adequate, beneficial, altruistic or of quality, they usually reach the goal or the end that is sought by that way. In this case, the means if they justify the end. Therefore they are legitimate, ethical and moral.

Otherwise, this is that the ends justify the means, should be the exception. Example: if the means to save all humanity was to sacrifice the lives of a few similar, called heroes. In this hypothetical case, if the people who will be heroes are proposed for this task of rescue, the means will be legitimate, ethical and therefore moral. If the saviors of humanity are obliged to fulfill this task, the means will not be legitimate, nor ethical and if immoral.

It depends on the target of the goal, nature of the type of achievements.

What a confusion this question has raised, here in Research-gate.

In more religious times, this was a valid question but seems always to have been answered in theological terms: If the End is What-Gods-Wills then all means are considered acceptable by Believers, even though some means are utterly despicable, such as eliminated everyone in an opposing tribe.

With the drop in religious belief in Modern Times (post 1600 in Europe) this has become a deeply divisive question in most societies but usually ignored. This is made worse by the Move-To-Science as a core ideology that refuses to face up to moral questions ("another domain"?).

So here we have a lot of 'Fence-Sitting', such as "it depends" when this avoids the moral/philosophical question? The unavoidable issue is when the only means being considered for the desirable end (Such as Victory in a War against Evil Men e.g. Nazis) is utterly immoral as when the US/England deliberately bombed German Civilians, killing 600,000 men, women and CHILDREN. As this was the Allied War Actions from 1943, resulting finally in the nuclear killings in Japan, it seems we are an Immoral Society that has adopted the ancient Warrior Code of Tribalism = Victory-IS-Everything.

Until we can agree on this Basic question, we are a Doomed civilization!!!

Come On, Folks:

Morality is not something anyone can ignore. It must be based on one's own ranked Value-System as this is used to decide when choosing; especially existential (Life or Death) choices. Our clever men ignored this question for many generations as they helped design and build killing weapons, leading to today's Doomsday Scenario of Universal Destruction.

So, NO MORE FENCE-Sitting - exercise your moral intuition !!!

Yes, but the most morally correct means out of the available ones (and of course they should be achievable) should be used.

Dear Omar:

You are avoiding the implications of the Question. The problem arises when people DO BAD actions for so-called morally good reasons. There are NO excuses: each of knows when BAD things are done to us and appreciate when some GOOD things occur.

Hello

When the end justifies the means, then man allows himself to do everything, and we lose the system of values and norms that control behavior, that is the philosophy of utilitarian capitalism.

thank you all.

In the thinking of the Muslim straight; there is no room to justify sin or beautify her ugly face, but can be abandoned and repent from them, (God is Forgiving, Most Merciful).

Oo yes, "the end justifies the means". The desired end always determines the process; ones behaviour or conduct, attitude is highly (90%) influenced by what he or she wants to experience and attain.

Oh, Koboi:

This discussion is about one's impact on others; NOT one's own desired results.

Try John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards" to get a good overview.

Oo Spencer,

This discussion is about the question: Do the ends justify the mean? If so, when? If not, why not?👌

And yes! The end is greatly influenced by an individual/s and the mans will power determines the pace or in this case the means. How far you will go or even 'impact' as you wish to state, in attaining the end is greatly influenced by the individual (all factors constant).

And so "a desirable end or undesirable end is an END* that has justifiable means depending on what his/her standard is.

For the Biblical Christian, "the end inevitably justifies the means"(Revelation 21:6-8). The humble lamb who was offered as an atonement for sin shall return as a "Lamb of wrath" (Revelation 7:15-17)for those that have known not repentance and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord.

Dear Koboi:

Yep, you realized what was the subject of this thread.

The question is one of General Ethics; not whether one

individual can justify their actions. People rationalize

all the time, but Is there a General Principle here or not?