End Never Justifies the Means

This paper discusses the contention that the end never justifies the means, particularly in research with humans.

1
END NEVER JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
1

2
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................3
Discussion...................................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................4
Reference list...............................................................................................................................................5
2

3
Introduction
Human beings prefer to follow deontological restrictions that help the group to stay connected with each
other in peace. But in certain situations most of the deontological prohibitions are wrong to justify the
means. For instance receiving information from an antisocial not always justifies the means for harm.
Hence a good end in this particular scenario does not necessarily justify adverse means (Karatasakis &
Brilakis, 2017). This paper sheds light o the contention that the end never justifies the means where
research with humans is concerned.
Discussion
The statement that ends never justify the means has made its place among human culture through
reasoning. People tend to justify their place based on the harmful activities at the end. This kind of
thinking has grown its roots from utilitarianism and consequentalism (Kopetz and Orehek, 2015).
However, agreeing for the statement is purposefully approving to any offence that had taken place behind
the action. For instance if a person is manipulated to speak for or against a crime action, justification will
stand biased. Hence stark good outcome can never excuse all the adversity with which it is associated.
Criminal activity is masked: In order to build a secured and better future, one cannot just go against the
ethics and values. Human nature is very impulsive and often is seen to be driven by emotions. According
to Belanger, (2015) what seems presently can’t be related to past or future. Humans live in a civilized
society that mostly follows a democratic framework. Hence there is opportunity for everyone to speak
themselves. One cannot jump into the conclusion by observing the end. Unless, criminal activity will
keep growing such as illegal transactions, biasness, illicit influences and so on.
Unforeseeable future: If one takes decision whimsically by observing just the end, he might reach at
unpredictable circumstances. For instance, a person comes under verbal provocation of somebody and
takes charge of any actions such as deploying huge resource for the sake of the other person; it may bring
him trouble (Belanger et al. 2016). Therefore it can be established that end never signifies to particular
scenario, it can even implies to steadfast decision that people takes under provocation.
Misleading decisions: Sometimes taking decisions based on the justified end misleads to wrongful
decisions. People often ignore the source instead they judge their decision based on the present scenario
(Sendjaya, 2016). For instance, a country chooses its leader listening his false promises but later onwards
realize that they made terrible mistake in electing a person who has a source of malicious indulgence. But
3

4
the people can do nothing now other than lamenting as the chosen leader is showing a different color to
his personality.
Conclusion
There are so many examples to speak for the statement. However there are few of the cases where ends
justify means but those examples are rare as compared to human research. History provides evidence to
frame ideology that states that life decisions are to be justified from different perspectives. It sounds very
unusual when one claims to achieve his goal through short route; it is very unlikely that he has adopted all
fair methods to outreach them. One should not decide things from the conclusion instead evaluate the
whole process to prevent any further vexation.
4

5
Reference list
Belanger, J.J., Schori-Eyal, N., Pica, G., Kruglanski, A.W. & Lafrenière, M.A., (2015). The
“more is less” effect in equifinal structures: Alternative means reduce the intensity and quality of
motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, pp.93-102.
Bélanger, J.J., Schumpe, B.M., Lafrenière, M.A.K., Giacomantonio, M., Brizi, A. & Kruglanski,
A.W., (2016). Beyond goal commitment: How expectancy shapes means evaluation. Motivation
Science, 2(2), p.67.
Karatasakis, A., & Brilakis, E. S. (2017). Does the end justify the means? The contemporary role
of dissection/re-entry strategies for recanalization of coronary chronic total occlusions.
Kopetz, C. & Orehek, E., (2015). When the end justifies the means: Self-defeating behaviors as
“rational” and “successful” self-regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5),
pp.386-391.
Sendjaya, S., Pekerti, A., Härtel, C., Hirst, G. & Butarbutar, I., (2016). Are authentic leaders
always moral? The role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadership and
morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), pp.125-139.
5