Can ends justify the means and whether ends and means should be seen as one rather than separate asymmetrical units are two larger philosophical questions. The answer, according to me, for the former question is no, and for the latter question is yes.
Firstly, on the issue of whether ends and means should be seen as one or mutually exclusive units, there are diverse perspectives to support both. One view can be that ends can’t be independent of the means that are used to attain them because ends are born with the birthmarks of the means like the final product produced by a machine depends on the inputs given for the production of it. Arguing that there is no connection between them is like reasoning that we can ‘get a rose through planting a noxious weed’. We can only reap what we sow.
Mahatma Gandhi, in his work Hind Swaraj showed a simple example for the above case. If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it. If I want to buy your watch, I have to pay for it; if I want a gift, I have to plead for it, and according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation. Thus, we see three different results for the three different means employed. Therefore, it is very clear that the means employed decide the nature of ends produced.
Another perspective to see how means and ends are intertwined is to see how incompetent and improper means result in the incompetent ends. The situation that prevailed in South America is a classic example. Simon Bolivar, impressed by the striking events of his generation like French revolution and emergence of USA, was saddened by the situation prevailing in South America at that time and felt that the day of liberation should not be put off longer and dedicated himself for the cause of National Independence that can establish the ideals of equality, fraternity and liberty in his country. With consistent revolutions, in twenty years, Bolivar attained emancipation from the Spanish rule. But post-colonial situation in South America is no different from that of colonial era. Persistent disorders broke out in the country. Foreign dictatorship is replaced by Indigenous dictatorship, and left Bolivar in complete disappointment.
What could be the prime reason for this situation to arise? Clearly, it is the incompetence of means. Bolivar attained the independence for his people who weren’t prepared to handle it. They didn’t realise the tremendous responsibility that is upon them to nurture the end that is achieved. If Bolivar employed the facet of training and making his people capable of utilizing the freedom as one of the core components in the course of revolution against imperial rule, then at the end, independence would lead to prosperity for all. Independence itself doesn’t lead to wonders; it depends on how citizens of a nation use it effectively. If the ends are attained with incompetent means, the situation can be compared to the ‘sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells’. This again shows how important to see both means and ends as one.
After looking at how ends and means presuppose each other, it is necessary to look at whether ends can justify the means. For this, the answer is no.
For a second, let us think that ends justify the means. Now this proposition is immediately followed by another question: What justifies an end? Indisputably, it is the means. It is always the means that determine the ends. As John Dewey puts it ‘the end justifies the means only when the means used are such as actually bring about the desired and desirable end’. Disputing this fact is like saying ‘I want to worship god; it does not matter that I do so by means of Satan’. It is an ignorant folly to think so.
The very first and clear reason for believing that the ends can’t justify the means is the fact that means and ends are intertwined. The example that is given in the beginning about the nature of the watch as said by Gandhi reinforce this fact.
From Marxian point of view, Bourgeoisie epoch clearly shows how ends can’t justify the means. In Capitalist society, the main aim of the Bourgeoisie is to augment capital and this objective is attained through continuous exploitation and pauperisation of the labour class. All the institution, state, law and order serve only the interests of the minority Bourgeoisie class. The state is reduced to mere ‘committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie’. The means employed by the Bourgeoisie in order to oppress a class, are so brutish that they don’t even assure at least slavish existence of the oppressed class. This leads to bourgeoisie forging ‘the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons – the modern working class – the proletarians’ and inevitable fall of Bourgeoisie. Therefore, it can be concluded that ends can’t be used to justify the means. And also, in few cases, as the one stated above, ends that are sought with illegitimate means will destroy the actors employing them.
If ends can justify the means, it will breed a ‘dangerous individualism’ that deprives individuals of all the morals. The main reason behind this is the fact that every individual has his own mental faculty and as Thomas Hobbes put it, Individuals are ‘selfish, nasty, brutish and short’. If every individual wants to pursue what he wants with any means he thinks as right, then it will infringe into and violate the rights of others. Ethically, no individual can infringe into the rights of other. This will only result in chaos and breed disorder in the society as a whole.
After surveying how ends can’t justify means, it is necessary to establish how to employ desirable means to attain desirable ends. In my view, the means should be employed by self-conscious individuals in such a way that can reflect and in cohesion with interest of majority in the society. Democracy is apt example for this. From times immemorial, human beings have been fighting for power or for supremacy through wars and continuous conflicts. Democracy brought in to the picture a more civilized manner of fighting by method of discussion and persuasion, not conflict. Illegitimate coercive usage of power is transformed into legitimate force that had adherence from masses of the society. Interests of majority population is addressed and leading to the prosperity of all the individuals in it.
Not all times the views held by, laws made by, actions that are done by majority are desirable. So, Democracy, well aware of this fact, internalised in it the dynamism to change and provide for all. Democracy can’t be reduced to simple majoritarianism. Legal framework in Democracy ensure freedom and order simultaneously. Democracy gives space for civil disobedience which is ‘intended as a means of attracting publicity or persuading the majority’ views to reconsider its positions and ensure desirable ends always. So, democratic means can lead to desirable ends.
In conclusion, it can be said that the ends and means are linked and ends can’t justify the means.
rishvanth.com 
Leave a comment