Do The Means Justify The End?

If a person is hungry is it right for him or her to steal food in order to satisfy one’s hunger? If you don’t have money to finance the hospital operation of any of your love ones is it ok to rob a bank just to have money?

In the first example the means is to steal and the end is to satisfy one’s hunger. While in the second example the means is to rob a bank and the end is to finance hospital operation.

In both examples do the means justify the ends?

Ethics: The Science Of Right Or Wrong

In our modern world and as our society progress, the perception of society with regards to the concept of right or wrong seems to change. This is especially most felt with the weakening of the traditional means of control and influence: family, school, church and government.

From the point of view of Ethics, there is such thing as the idea or concept of what is right, in the same way that there is also the concept of what is wrong.

These two basic concepts of right or wrong are two distinct and separate notions and as such cannot exist at the same time with regards to the effect or consequences of one’s act.

If there is no such concept of right or wrong then all human acts will be the same, meaning it cannot be classify either as right or wrong.

Common sense and experience tell us, that there is such a thing as right or wrong on the basis of the consequences or effect of one’s conduct to one self, to others, and to the society.

In the given example of stealing or robbing, it encourages laziness not to find job or other right means in order to support oneself or one’s family needs. Further, such act itself implies lack of respect to the property belonging to others.

If the there is no such thing as the concept of right or wrong then, everyone could steal or rob depending upon one’s reasons for doing so. In such a case, there would no longer be any moral absolutes or moral values that human beings are suppose follow.

The Moral Absolute Of Right Or Wrong Conduct

   There is such a thing as the moral absolute of right or wrong conduct. It always exists and which presupposes any human action. Without these moral absolutes then human action will have no guide and there’s no standard or any reference point for the effect or consequence of one’s conduct.

In connection with this premise, it may be ask if human beings are essentially moral beings. I believe that human beings are essentially moral being for there is the basic ethical postulate “to do good and avoid evil”.

How could any human beings do good if there is no such thing as “good” in the first place? And how could human beings avoid “evil” if there is no such thing as “evil” in the first place?

Thus, any human act for that matter must always be weight and measure with the prism of the moral absolute of right or wrong conduct.