Doordoorium

A dispute · spans 3 eras

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

When may we do bad to achieve good?

Machiavelli's Prince makes the case in its starkest political form. Utilitarianism gives the question a formal calculus: yes, if the resulting good outweighs the resulting harm. Kant rules the calculation out of court: persons are ends in themselves; you may never use them merely as means. The 20th century put the question under unbearable pressure: revolutionary violence, total war, terror bombing, the camps. Camus's break with Sartre was, at bottom, a refusal to accept the Stalinist version of "yes."

◇ ◇ ◇

// The sides

Yes, sometimes

Politics answers to its own logic of outcome, and a ruler must at times do what private morality condemns in order to preserve the community itself; whoever prizes his own clean hands above all pays for them with other people's lives.

Never

Every person is an end in themselves, so their dignity sets an absolute limit that no outcome, however good, may cross; whoever crosses it once has agreed, in principle, to cross it anywhere.