Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
One school of thought holds that the ends justify the means when it comes to morality, whereas the other holds that the means should always come first. Which perspective is, in your opinion, more appropriate? Explain your response. (150 words) [UPSC 2018]
Views on Morality of Actions
1. Means Are Paramount
Viewpoint: This perspective asserts that the methods or means used to achieve an outcome are of paramount importance. Ethical behavior is judged based on the morality of the process rather than the final result.
Justification: Ensuring that actions align with ethical standards prevents potential harm and maintains integrity. For instance, whistleblowers who expose corruption act ethically by using transparent means, regardless of potential risks or outcomes.
2. Ends Justify the Means
Viewpoint: This approach argues that if the end result is positive or beneficial, the methods used to achieve it are justified, even if they involve unethical practices.
Justification: This view can sometimes justify unethical means if the outcome is deemed significant. For example, in the Enron scandal, executives used deceptive practices to appear financially healthy, believing it was justified by the goal of maintaining company success. However, this led to widespread financial damage and loss of trust.
Conclusion: The view that means are paramount is generally more appropriate as it ensures that ethical standards are maintained and long-term consequences are considered. Prioritizing ethical means helps avoid harm and ensures that integrity is preserved, even if the immediate outcomes are not ideal.
Model Answer
Introduction
The debate over whether the means or the ends are more critical in assessing the morality of actions is complex, with compelling arguments on both sides. Each perspective brings valuable insights into moral philosophy and ethical decision-making.
Body
On one hand, the view that means are of paramount importance argues that the morality of an action hinges on the methods employed to achieve it. This perspective emphasizes ethical standards, asserting that unethical means cannot justify a desirable outcome. For instance, the principle of non-violence in Mahatma Gandhi’s Indian independence movement underscores this view, where the means of non-violent civil disobedience were as significant as the end goal of independence. This approach ensures that the outcome aligns with moral values, fostering a just society.
Conversely, the belief that the ends justify the means posits that the ultimate goal is the primary consideration, permitting any means necessary to achieve it, regardless of ethical implications. This view can be seen in extreme situations, such as a government imposing martial law to prevent a terrorist attack that could cause mass casualties. Here, the dire need to protect lives may justify questionable actions.
In my opinion, neither view is universally appropriate. Context and circumstances significantly influence the evaluation of morality. While there are scenarios where undesirable means may be justified for critical outcomes, in most cases, the ethical integrity of the means employed is essential to ensure the outcome is not only desirable but also morally acceptable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a balanced approach that considers both the means and the ends, alongside the ethical principles involved, is the most appropriate way to evaluate the morality of actions. Recognizing the interplay between means and ends allows for more nuanced moral reasoning, fostering both ethical integrity and beneficial outcomes.