'Does the End Justify the Means? Essay\r'

'The ‘ overthrow exempt the convey’ is a philosophical maxim popularized by Niccolo Machiavelli during the rebirth era. This maxim is supposed to justify the meetions of a loss leader or what Machiavelli calls ‘the Prince’, to do whatever is in his creator in so far as the ‘ turn back/s’ justifies the ‘ inwardness’ of attaining it. Machiavelli highlighted that the ‘ stop over’ that a ‘Prince’ or a leader should focus on is the fear of his regime, authority or power. This theory is often delusive as a standard principle normally by a few who rules a comp any(prenominal) of citizenry, a community or a nation.\r\nThey ever so believe that what they argon doing redounds to the benefit of the majority. This few settlement non accept that what they be in possession of done is wretched horizontal if it produced good results for many mint. History entrust tell us that many events in the former(p renominal) watch gained favorable comments from some individuals plainly divergent from the point of view of the majority. Take the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombard by the Amerifanny forces during the war to weaken the morale of the invading Japanese forces in the Far East, which resulted to a spirittime sad memory for thousands of Japanese victims (Walzer, 2004).\r\nIf we atomic number 18 part of that era, perhaps we would simply say that it was the be positions counsel to stop the Japanese aggressors. For the Japanese and its allies, it was an grievous act for the Americans to involve innocent(p) Japanese civilians in the war. Leaping forward to the present era where large number hurl become broad-minded and peace-oriented, many Americans have condemned the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a number of big organizations have initiated moves to restore America’s image to the man especially to the Japanese volume.\r\n unless there are also sectors i ncluding the force who believe that the war would not have ended if the bombing was not done. Does the end justify the means in this case? for sure not; according to Christine Smith in her cla enjoyment entitled, The End does not justify the Means, committing any acts of evil, unheeding of any given circumstances, is endlessly considered wrong. This writer whitethorn be right in saying this pull up that she fails to manifest the exact definition of evil in her statement. When the national interest is at risk to write democracy, the array is given a free-hand by the political sympathies to thwart rebellion.\r\nAfter a series of antiauthoritarian process with maximum tolerance and the rebels adhere to their hard line principle of a â€Å"coup d‘etat,” the host has the ultimate option to use arms. On the side of the relatives and advocates of the aggressive movement this could be evil, but on the side of the political science and those against undemocratic proces s of government take-over, this could be reasonable. Let’s analyze some other case, the pop of Korean Airlines Flight 007 in Russia way back 1983 which carried 269 passengers including the crew where most of the victims were Americans and Koreans.\r\nIt was argued by Russia that the matte violated its dispersespace, with a hint that it was a spot plane, which led to its ultimate decision to shoot it down, go the U. S. quickly denounced the brutal act of Russia, justifying the cause of air space violation as an aeronautical misreckoning of the pilot. As far as the Russians are concerned, the end justified the means, but on the side of the Americans and Koreans, that was an act of terrorism. In this particular case, the element of ideology has to be refuted.\r\nWhile the brutal act was considered by the Russians as a way to suppress any bane to their ideology, they did it in any way possible even if the world would condemn it as an evil act. Russians believed that the t ragic end has justified the means involving the interest of the Soviet Union. Given that it was an aeronautical error to violate airspace, Russia should have instructed the pilot of the ill-fated airplane to follow an requirement landing for investigation concerning the alleged espionage instead of downing it, considering that it was a passenger aircraft and not a military one.\r\nEven assuming that it was a language bar between pilots that could have been the cause of the immediate military response, still it can never be justified. On the part of the victims’ relatives, the incident was intentionally done and Russians must(prenominal) be stiffly penalized. For a few who control the military, it was part of an exercise. For communist allies, it was the right thing to do, but for the rest of the world, it would be remembered as a drubbing in the sky. Same is true for any genial of religion which has a great concern for tender-hearted life; the act was inspired by the devil.\r\nIn cases of tortures, human rights abuses, military actions and capital punishments, the end whitethorn not justify the means. Even if the ultimate result is good for the majority or even to a nation, if the means was done in a brutish way, then, that could never be justified. But for soldiers who are assiduous in war, it is entirely a diverse philosophy. A soldier has to follow orders from his superiors to protect the sovereignty of a nation, that’s his duty. When he goes to the jungle in take care for the enemies, he carries with him a mandate from his superiors.\r\nBut when he is out there to engage in combat, a different scenario occurs. He becomes primarily concerned almost his own life and to return to his family alive, the mandate becomes secondary. very(prenominal) few want to be a triggerman and much lesser to be friendly with the enemies. A soldier is a military machine, that’s how he was honed and oriented; he has to kill the enemy in the first place the enemy kills him. He has to execute a fast action if his life is endangered. That’s the game of war, that’s the game of chance if he wants to survive.\r\nBut if a soldier is engaged in killing innocent people just because he could not get word the enemy exactly, then, his action does not justify his motive. If he tortures an enemy or a group of people in search for truth, it can be held unjust. If he is trigger-happy and involved in mass movement because he fails to identify the enemies exactly, he must be condemned and be subject to a court-martial. There can never be an excuse for killing people at an instant without concrete evidence approve up by reliable logistics, and in so doing, his conscience must be directly involved.\r\nBut how do we gauge and monitor his professionalism in the arena? A soldier is dispatched with a troop and a leader who keeps track of all his moves. There is a saying that â€Å"foul odor will always come out in the open ,” especially when the victim’s relatives submit a complaint with agree evidence. Let’s take a fount at Teresa M. Hudock’s article entitled, ‘The End Does not Justify The Means’. She said that the best spokesperson of a credible perfectionist is one who does not use military force and violence in any given circumstances, even in self-defense, and he must be an advocate of human rights.\r\nThis might be an ideal scenario. War or no war, when life is at stake magnanimity will be a subject for legal arguments especially when self-defense is in question. No person will stomach others to take his life without doing anything except for born-heroes. Therefore, justifying the end by the course of action taken depends on how people look at it and it varies on the standpoint of different sectors of the society. In essence, the end does not always justify the means.\r\nNonetheless, there are extreme instances or ‘ arrogant emergencies’ wherein the ends bring about the greater good which justifies the means of attaining it.\r\nReferences:\r\nHudock, T. M. The End does not Jusifies the Means. Retrieved on January 26, 2009, from http://www. usc. edu/dept/LAS/ir/calis/pdfs/171w. PDF Machiavelli, N. (1515). The Prince. http://www. constitution. org/mac/prince00. htm Smith, C. (2008). The End does not Justify the Means. Retrieved on January 25, 2009, from http://www. nolanchart. Com/ article4573. hypertext mark-up language Walzer, M. (2004). Emergency Ethics. New Haven and London. Yale University Press. P. 33-55\r\n'