And that you get a bit of a chuckle along the way. It means there is a justifiable reason for going to war. Which in turn, covers up the truth of the situation. Is this suggesting that no matter how evil your goal, it is ok if you use virtuous methods to accomplish it? Think of a businessman who once owned a business empire but due to multiple scandals and corruption done in his business, he needed to file for bankruptcy and ultimately lost everything he worked hard for. As a example Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor.
It has not been published in a paper version, yet, but I am still looking for a suitable publisher. True, the ethics are questionable, but being that the ends are so positive, it would be futile to look at it otherwise. Although such reasoning may seem radical, it is practice more readily that most people are inclined to believe. Thank you for your time, and I eagerly await your response. You are always forced to make decisions that seem like nomatter what you do someone is going to be getting the short end of the stick.
Cruelty as a tool for political ends? Milgram, a psychological researcher conducted an experiment in 1963 which was influenced by the holocaust. The only reason why Robin Hood did his deeds was because his village was so poor that the villagers could hardly afford anything to eat and so, with his gang, he would seize carriages and take the gold before distributing them fairly to the townsfolk. The term Machiavellian was derived from a 16th Century philosopher, writer and a politician Niccolo Machiavelliani who in one of his books, the Prince describes the level of lies and influence administered by political leaders to manipulate the mass to stay in power. These are valid points, but in a necessary war many people die, but many more will be saved by the sacrifices made in this war. Timoteo, being a man of faith makes him a more ironic figure to be guilty of fraud; yet Machiavelli makes sure we are not deceived by his title, and even so Timoteo proves to be the guiltiest of all the characters. Robespierre s rigorous penalty of those decreeing disloyalty to the state can barely be considered eventful when you consider what would hold happened had he non done this France would now still be a state full of differing and continually differing and contending political groups instead than the successful democracy that it presently is. A person exhibiting this behavior is a.
All that said, thank you for pointing out that the accuser quote from the same chapter I am citing, chapter 8 should also be citied. Take for example World War 2. They were not supposed to take instructions by phone, let alone exceed the maximum dose. The basic difference between deontological thinking or ethics and teleological thinking or ethics is whether the code of ethics thats being discussed is based on rules and principles of some kind, which would make it deontological, or whether the ethics are based on the outcomes of the decision, which would. This means that as long one can obtain his or her desired goal then it is reasonable for him or her to do anything that can help in the accomplishment of his or her goal, whatever the mechanisms used in attaining it are.
On the other hand, if the end is worth the cost, then it is fine to eliminate the undesirables. Andrew: I only eat organic food. In effect, the phrase is a justification for dispensing with all morality and principle in the passage towards a successful conclusion. It is impossible to say with certainty exactly where this expression comes from, but it seems like it has been a recurring idea throughout history and philosophy. Newer editions break up those long pieces into more digestible portions. By ending the war, which involved the deaths of some people but in the end, saved many more lives than were lost.
Your right to swing your fist, of course, ends at the tip of my nose. But what do you do when a country declares war against you? No more monarchy, no more continual societal, political and economic sadness. People absolutely have a right to be wrong. One key point of contention between some of these figures is related to the use of violence in pursuit of these greater goods. Most people look at this statement and ponder why this individual believes in such a thing. By doing it clear that they had to band together if this were to work, Robespierre created a sense of patriotism and pride.
Furthermore, the concept can be found throughout Discourses on Livy. Perhaps we feel we need to lie to protect someone's feelings. It has nothing to do with matters of self-defense, or anything in that category. Anyway, I don't go in for it myself, but when they say the end justifies the means, that's what they mean. Furthermore, Machivelli points out, that as far as the opinion of others is concerned, appearances matter more than action.
Another example of the thesis statement is something that happens quite frequently in today's society. It was 1789 and the citizens of France were fed up. Niccol Machiavelli stresses the idea that the end justifies the means. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result. While besieged, Agathocles took part of his force and attacked the Carthaginian cities in North Africa which forced the enemy army to retreat. In the terminal, France was winning on all foreparts they achieved a democracy, which was what they set out to make.
Excuses- pardons, makes amends for Any- Excluding none Evil- morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked All definitions are taken from the American Heritage dictionary. Peace was finally attained at the cost of someone's life. In simpler terms, this means that most anything is reasonable if it leads to an important and meaningful result. It means that that statement is what you thought about and you have to stick with it! Hobbes and Rousseau are among the classical theorists of nature of man, and each holds the opposite view. More often, the scenario is something less drastic, such as exaggerating one's skills on a resume in order to get a job that will provide for one's family.
If the end is on the right side of this line, then we are justified in seeking it and using non-ideal means to get there. However if you subscribe to the theory that the end justifies the means that doesn't matter anymore now that peace was attained. I wish that the government would help them. Well-Used Cruelty So what was the difference Machiavelli was trying to highlight in these two similar tales?. Anyone who uses a computer today has likely heard of Microsoft, the maker of Microsoft Windows. An enterprise can succeed only if it has a goal.