End Justifies The Means In Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

The few or the many? Their lives or our lives? One action, or many more months of fighting with many more deaths to come, with no end in sight? These were the questions that the American government had to ask themselves during World War II, when deciding on whether or not to use the atomic bombs that they had at their disposal. The weapon was eventually used, and while controversial, it was done with a good end in mind. The ends do, in fact, justify the means of war if the goal is good, and if the action being taken is not so morally wrong that there is no coming back from it. The phrase “The end justifies the means”, originating from Niccolo Machiavelli's book "The Prince", is interpreted by some to mean doing anything whatsoever to get the result you want, regardless of the methods used and how those methods may be perceived. It does not matter whether these methods
are legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil. Some will agree that the statement is correct; however, others don’t see it that way. Machiavelli uses this statement many times in his articles. For example, in his article “The Qualities of the Prince”, Machiavelli uses the statement to answer the question of war, of how in the end after killing many people which is wrong, and then one side comes out victorious. This compares to the Americans’ actions in that while the use of the bombs was frowned upon by many, it was the quickest and easiest way to end the war without the loss of many more soldier’s lives, with the war already being one of the most devastating in terms of casualties suffered by all sides.

The concept of “The end justifies the means” was introduced primarily as a way to get out of taking responsibility for wrong actions. To tell themselves or others, that they didn’t steal or kill or something else morally unacceptable, and they did whatever they had to do to survive. Some agree to this statement, and those people see the glass as half full not half empty. They come to an understanding as to why those people do what they do; they do it because they have no other option. Others see this as an excuse to start war and cause mayhem. An example of this can be seen when a man steals because he’s poor and has no job, but he has a family and if he doesn’t get caught, he’ll return home and continue to do this to make sure his family has what they need to survive. Although the action is not a good one, it is not as bad as him doing something like killing people and taking their money as an alternative, an action which is morally irredeemable. Some will say that he has to do what he has to do and give the statement “The end justifies the means” meaning that his family has food to survive, and this justifies his actions which would not usually be accepted. Others say that it is not right and the man should get himself a job and not steal, even though he is doing it for what he believes are the right reasons. When a man has obtained a worthy result through the use of unworthy methods, how does affect the man’s soul?
Whether they like it or not, all people have a conscience, and because of this people have to feel for others when they do something bad, mainly because there is something in their past which has led to them taking this path. I previously mentioned an example of a man stealing to support his family. What will happen if he does this again and again and never gets caught? Over time, he’ll start to feel nervous and guilty; feeling nervous because he may eventually get caught, and guilty over what he has done time and time again. Sometimes, people do not feel guilty until they are caught and brought in front of a judge where they explain why they did what they did. The court sometimes takes these things into consideration, however, just by saying I did what I did to help my family is just a long way of saying “The end justifies the means”. Consequently, if one asked if it is difficult to come to a worthy end with unworthy means, it depends on the viewpoint that each individual
takes. On the other hand, if the result is worth the methods used to get there, then it is acceptable to overlook the actions that they took. However, a majority of the problems arise when judging if it is worth it. For example, assassinating people that are murderers is justified in that it saves future lives, as for assassinating a murderous figure such as Hitler would have been something I believe everyone can agree would have been justified. While taking another human’s life is morally unacceptable, it would be justified in this case as it would have saved many more lives as a result. The concept of the ends justifying the means is demonstrated here, as the worthy results are not as bad when taking into consideration the goal that is trying to be reached, as well as the action not being one that makes the perpetrator irredeemable.