when we say "the ends justify the means" can that be interpreted in more than one way?

Question

example: aristotle says the ends justify the mean when he refers to the golden mean, which has virtue as its mean and countering vices on either end of the spectrum. in this sense, the two ends (vice) mathematically justify the mean (justice) since without the unjust ends there would have been no mean by which to establish justice in the first place. so the ends really do justify the mean (as in, they define it).

BUT, machiavelli's claim that "the ends always justify the means" is to say that the outcome (end) of any action (mean) is always justified by the means put forth to accomplish that goal. whereas aristotle was concerned with means, machiavelli seems to be more concerned with ends.

the connection between the two philosophers' approach to justice seams really similar, but i can't quite put my finger on it... this question drives me bonkers sometimes, so any advice/interpretation you feel like sharing will certainly appreciated!! Thank you!

Answer 1

It It is simply so refreshing just to be able to kick around a subject other than the weather... Whether or not to agree or disagree is not what is important!



The easiest way to consider it is by using many examples.

For one: It is interesting to consider the sentence,

"The journey is more important than the destination so enjoy the ride."

At first, we consider the journey as the means and the end would be the destination. Perhaps the mule, jet, raft, balloon or whatever could also be considered as part of the means, the money, sponsor, gun, charm, hostage, also. But then again the end could be the experience and the destination only the spur/means to enact the journey. The end could be spiritual, monetary, or to attain social recognition. Are the ends and the means inextricable? Is it a new question or just the continuity of this one?

Answer 2

In spite of my long-standing belief that coincidence is an illusion produced by weak and frightened minds, I don't think there is any connection. First off, Aristotle never said the ends justify the mean. He said something in Greek that somebody later decided to translate as "the ends justify the mean". I doubt that the Greek phrase he said could be construed in the same way as the Machiavelli quote. To further confuse the issue, Machiavelli said something in an archaic Italian dialect that is nowhere near as ambiguous as "the ends justify the means".

So actually, Aristotle said that temperance is meaningless without extremes, and Machiavelli said that the tools one uses are justified by the objective they are used to obtain.

The connection you are seeing is aggressive pragmatism. Both Aristotle and Machiavelli were more concerned with what was than with what should be, and neither would hesitate to sacrifice the few for the good of the many. Aristotle saw the benefit of seeing how evil someone could be to figure out the appropriate way to behave; Machiavelli saw the benefit of committing atrocities to force an agenda.

To be clear, though, Machiavelli was not a philosopher. Philosophers are those who seek knowledge for its own sake. Machiavelli sought knowledge only for its practical applications. Machiavelli would have thought it was a pretty good joke if you told him he was a philosopher. I mean, after somebody translated it for him.

Answer 3

I am not quite sure that I completely understand Aristotle's argument. I can understand how a virtuous mean would justify the beginning end, but I don't see how a virtuous mean would justify the end, end. There does seem to be different interpretation based on how you define the ends and how you define the means.

Answer 4

As in the means justify the ends? Yes once the ends swing to a means the next step would be an ends. It is a continuous thing that happens in all directions. It makes no difference where you jump in and start explaining it or what you call it. What is a means as opposed to an ends but words that mean different things to different people. It is simply where in the cycle, pendulum swing, continuous motion explanation starts. One is not the ultimate cause of the other.

Answer 5

Aristotle seems to be saying that two opposing vices (bad things) result in a good thing together.

Machiavelli seems to be saying that the means (which can be bad things) are justified by what end they achieve. Thus "bad" actions can be okay because of their "good" results. Granted, this is perhaps an oversimplification, but hopefully this gives you an idea.



And a bit of ends-means humor:



http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=8946

Answer 6

Consequentialist: If the consequences are good, the action was good..vice versa.