The means could be self justifying, the initial conditions could justify the means, the environment could justify the means, pure self-interest, etc… Having the ends, and only the ends, justify the means seems like a very unlikely position for the majority of the human population to hold, given the huge array of possibilities.
EDIT: And some may even say there are no justifications at all, the very idea itself fallacious, also for a variety of reasons such as:
Free will doesn’t truly exist, usually expressed technically as humans are like every other thermodynamic process in the universe, determinists, super-determinists, predestination theologians (with suitable religious phrasing), etc., belong to this category.
Justifications are always relative to some reference frame, moral relativists, cultural relativists, etc., belong to this category.
Words themselves lack meaning, lack sufficient rigour, lack some metaphysical quality, etc., to express this kind of relationship of ‘justifying means’, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Popper, et. al, belong to this category.
Kind of. The means (and their consequences) are part of the ends. Most people trying to justify good ends through bad means forget that, and are actually pursuing bad ends. But if the sum of the results along the way is good, that’s good.
The phrase “ends justify the means” originally came from a context of ruling a state where it meant more like “beneficial longer term outcomes may matter more than whatever condemnation comes in the short term”. It was never about whether such acts are good or bad, just that from a wider point of view they might be judged worthwhile.
I don’t think the phrase originally came from any singular context or source. As it was a common enough view in all the major ancient civilizations, Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus, and the North China Plain.
It also seems unlikely to have originated in ruling a state generally since recent historiography is confident that certain professions, such as prostitution, likely predate any recorded organized state.
This seems to be some variant of the ends justifying the means?
Most people here are consequentalists, and so would ask, what else could justify the means?
The means could be self justifying, the initial conditions could justify the means, the environment could justify the means, pure self-interest, etc… Having the ends, and only the ends, justify the means seems like a very unlikely position for the majority of the human population to hold, given the huge array of possibilities.
EDIT: And some may even say there are no justifications at all, the very idea itself fallacious, also for a variety of reasons such as:
Free will doesn’t truly exist, usually expressed technically as humans are like every other thermodynamic process in the universe, determinists, super-determinists, predestination theologians (with suitable religious phrasing), etc., belong to this category.
Justifications are always relative to some reference frame, moral relativists, cultural relativists, etc., belong to this category.
Words themselves lack meaning, lack sufficient rigour, lack some metaphysical quality, etc., to express this kind of relationship of ‘justifying means’, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Popper, et. al, belong to this category.
and so on
Kind of. The means (and their consequences) are part of the ends. Most people trying to justify good ends through bad means forget that, and are actually pursuing bad ends. But if the sum of the results along the way is good, that’s good.
If you combine means and ends like that then it seems to be a tautological statement.
The phrase “ends justify the means” originally came from a context of ruling a state where it meant more like “beneficial longer term outcomes may matter more than whatever condemnation comes in the short term”. It was never about whether such acts are good or bad, just that from a wider point of view they might be judged worthwhile.
I don’t think the phrase originally came from any singular context or source. As it was a common enough view in all the major ancient civilizations, Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus, and the North China Plain.
It also seems unlikely to have originated in ruling a state generally since recent historiography is confident that certain professions, such as prostitution, likely predate any recorded organized state.