We often hear this phrase, and with what it means, we mainly meet in the works of classics and contemporaries. Does the end justify the means? A question that can make hundreds of people rack their brains. Pragmatists will no doubt answer “yes,” but can one say so from a moral point of view?
Where did the dictum come from?
If the end justifies the means, how to understand which end is truly good and worthy of sacrifice? A good example in modern life can be considered the death penalty. On the one hand, basically such a punishment is awarded to people who have committed serious crimes, and in order to prevent their repetition and for the edification of others, they are deprived of their life.
But who has the right to decide that a person is guilty? Is it worth it to create professional killers? And if a person was mistakenly convicted, who will be responsible for the execution of the innocent?
That is, interest in such a topic is fully justified. And it is logical that, together with modern technologies and the desire to solve this eternal question, there is a need to find out who initially thought that this was permissible? Why did man decide to hide behind lofty goals to justify his act? But even when searching for information, it is difficult to understand who is actually the author of this slogan.
In search of the truth
One of the most reliable sources of information today are books. It is from there that people draw information, study history from them and, possibly, find unique facts. But on the topic of the expression “Means justifies the goal” it is difficult to find a concrete answer there. That's because the statement has been around for many years, it was used and paraphrased by many famous thinkers and philosophers. Someone agreed, someone denied, but in the end, finding the author was not so simple. The main candidates for authorship: Machiavelli, Jesuit Ignatius Loyola, theologian Herman Buzenbaum and philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
Really Machiavelli?
When people become interested: “The end justifies the means ... Whose slogan is this?”, Most often the Italian historical figure and thinker of the XV-XVI centuries Niccolo Machiavelli gives the palm .
He is the author of the famous treatise "Sovereign", which can be safely called a textbook for a good politician, especially those times. Despite the fact that centuries have passed since his activity, some of his thoughts can still be considered relevant. But in his works there is no such expression. To some extent, his views can be summarized by this phrase, but in a different sense. Machiavelli's philosophy is based on making the enemy believe in the betrayal of their ideals. Throw dust in your eyes and take them by surprise, but do not abandon them for the sake of "higher goals." His views do not imply action against his ideals, where the means justify the goal, but a political game.
Jesuit motto
Of course, Ignatius Loyola is considered the next author of the quote after Machiavelli. But this again is completely wrong. You can’t just pass the championship from hand to hand. For each of these thinkers, the views can be reflected by this phrase, paraphrased, but with the same essence.
But this only shows that the source was completely different, because over time, interest in the phrase only grows. Since the remedy justifies the goal, is it connected with the Jesuits? Yes. If you conduct a little research, it becomes obvious that the first statement was formulated by Escobar-i-Mendoza. Like Loyola, he is also a Jesuit, and quite famous. Thanks to him, some believe that the phrase was the motto of the order. But in fact, after the pope's censure of the views of Escobar, he was completely abandoned, and the Jesuit slogan itself sounds like this: "To the great glory of God."
The dilemma of our time
In our era of tolerance and humanism (more precisely, the pursuit of such ideals), is it possible to meet the opinion among the highest ranks that the end justifies the means? The examples are numerous, but they are rather based on subjective opinion, because none of the politicians dare to say such a phrase directly. On the other hand, what remains is always an instrument of self-education. Books and their authors, which through writing show flaws in human society. Now, however, the scope of influence is not limited to books alone.
Characters of books, films, computer games and other modern works have to make choices and decide many times whether the tool justifies the goal or not. The choice is made between the greatest and the least evil in the name of the common good. For example, the hero has to decide: is it worth sacrificing a village in order to have time to prepare the castle for a siege? Or is it better to try to save the village and hope that the current forces are enough without fortifications? In any case, it seems that the third option does not exist. But if ideals are surrendered, and the hero begins to decide who deserves to live and who does not, can it be said that his world will be saved? Of course, when you read a story and delve into the essence, it may also seem that there is no other way. But in the end, the author usually shows the price of "good intentions" and gives the reader a chance to think about the possibility of avoiding the bitter end. Sometimes it’s easier to close your eyes and convince yourself that you are doing the right thing. But not always the easiest way is the right one.