Chat with us, powered by LiveChat The End Can Justify the Means But Rarely and Why the end doesn’t j - Writingforyou

The End Can Justify the Means But Rarely and Why the end doesn’t j

“The End Can Justify the Means—But Rarely” and  “Why the end doesn't justify the means, but the means can always justify the end 

PHIL 1100, Fall 2022

Term Paper Instructions (Due, Monday, Dec.5, 12 noon on Moodle course website)

The topic for this term paper is on the ethical question on whether and under what conditions a ‘higher purpose’ (end) can justify the means—which is commonly seen as unethical or immortal otherwise.

To help you situate the topic in some concrete contexts, you are required to read two essays, “ The End Can Justify the Means—But Rarely” (by Warren G. Bovee) and “Why the end doesn't justify the means, but the means can always justify the end” (by James Schroeder), posted on our course website. The first essay explores means and end relationship in the context of journalism, and the second essay argues, somewhat surprisingly, that the means can always justify the end, not the other way around. You need to read these two essays carefully and really digest them first, and only then can you be properly prepared for writing your own essay.

Contents Requirements:

1. Your essay will argue for (or against) a position about the relationship between means and end in the context of something you are familiar with (e.g., a job you had or have, a volunteer experience, being a student, being a member of a sport team at school, etc.).

2. You are going to argue M (means) justifies (or does not justify) E (end), or the other way around, or neither (M or E) justifies the other, and under what specific conditions. You must use concrete examples, at least two examples, to show these conditions.

3. The paper should appropriate ideas from the two essays above mentioned. At least one quote or paraphrase (both with page reference) from each essay. It is recommended to use more than one quote or paraphrase from each essay.

Format requirements (also serving as parts of the grading criteria):

1. The title of the term paper should be clear and focused.

2. The Introduction should be brief, avoiding irrelevant digression, and keeping in line with the title (the promised topic).

3. It is required that each body paragraph starts with a topic sentence. This is the sentence that captures the gist of the paragraph following it.

4. When a quote or a paraphrase is used, make sure it integrates into the flow of your text.

5. Write short and clear sentences; avoid long sentences—a sentence that is three lines long without proper punctuation marks is almost certainly unclear or inarticulate.

6. Avoid writing empty sentences– sentences that are tautological, which seem to say something but in fact say nothing concrete or specific. (E.g., “Human, since the childhood, was threatened by different diseases”, “Perhaps Socrates is right, and perhaps Socrates is wrong.”)

7. A paragraph should be consistent and coherent—i.e., the whole paragraph should stick to the promise given in the topic sentence. Do not digress or wander away.

8. The maximum of words for this term paper is 1000; 800 words in good quality is better than 1000 words with filling-the-blank tricks.

9. In arguing for your position, you can cover three or more of the following: (a) cite a principle, or/and (b) consequences, or/and (c) examples, or/and (d) consider an objection to your view and respond to that objection, or/and (e) clarify a concept when it is necessary or helpful to do so. (See Tables in the Instructions on Major Project No.2).

,

2022 Fall, PHIL 1100, Reading Material (Essay 1) for Term Paper

Schroeder: Why the end doesn't justify the means, but the means can always justify the end

James Schroeder

Special to the Courier & Press

Human nature is naturally focused on outcomes. We can deal with a difficult, sad story if it has a happy ending. We love when our favorite team wins even if the game was “ugly” at times. Conflict that is effectively resolved, or peace that has been accomplished, often has a way of overshadowing some really challenging times.

But as young kids, we learned that the “end doesn’t justify the means.” In other words, a positive outcome isn’t, well, a good thing if the methods used were dishonest or harmful to others. If a team won a big game (of which winning is good), but used dishonest means (perhaps by deflating footballs), the outcome itself is tarnished. If people gave gifts to the underprivileged, but did so by stealing them from others, stealing would undermine the charitable act.

Ultimately, the underlying message of the adage is that only one thing matters more than outcome. And that is how we got there, including the reasons and processes we used to accomplish what we did. Although society has a way of still rewarding and idolizing those who succeed despite dubious, or downright despicable means, the saying itself still rings true, and science supports that reinforcing good means versus preferred outcomes does pay off. For example, studies indicate that when we praise effort over performance in the classroom, students end up actually doing better academically and psychologically. On the contrary, cheating or avoiding hard classes might keep your GPA high, but using these means never justifies the end result. 

Yet as often occurs, one principle can suggest a related one. Thus, I make the case that although the “end doesn’t justify the means”, the “means can always justify the end.” To further explain, I must first elaborate on the word “means.” By means, I am not just talking about the behavioral methods by which something is accomplished, but also the underlying purpose(s) that is undertaken. Let’s use an example of a longstanding, serious personal conflict with someone else. Many people, especially guys in relationships, are taught that it is best to “avoid the conflict” [means] to keep the peace [end]. On the surface, this might seem like a noble, wise route to take. But for most people and circumstances, this strategy backfires because people become more bitter, disengaged, and ultimately unable to effectively resolve an issue that is central to their well-being and that of their relationship. So, although it is difficult (and can often increase conflict and uneasiness in the short-term), addressing the conflict respectfully, transparently, and empathetically [means] to improve the well-being of the individuals and relationship involved [purpose] is often the key to resolving a conflict [end].

As the example denotes, the key to effective “means” are utilizing respectful, transparent, and empathetic methods for an underlying purpose of bettering not just self, but others and the situation as a whole. Certain areas of service or action necessitate a specific level of competence (e.g., rewiring a home or performing surgery), and part of using virtuous means is being transparent and responsible when taking on these tasks. But many of our daily undertakings involve a deed that requires no level of expertise, but behooves us to consider the “means” we are using. And if we are using means that adhere to the guidelines I mentioned, then no matter how horrible the outcome, the “means do justify the end”. For example, if an adolescent feels called to speak to his father honestly, respectfully, and compassionately about how the father’s drinking is affecting family members, there is no guarantee the outcome will be good; in fact, the father might physically or verbally lash out towards him or others, and the outcome might seem anything but positive. But the means for what was done would justify any end that occurs.

In saying all this, what we are ultimately trying to teach our kids (and embrace ourselves) are the virtues of courage and altruism (unselfishness). Both often require the spirit of one to enable the other, but they also entail a deep abiding pursuit of what is honest, true, and good. Sometimes this pursuit leads to what are seemingly negative and uncomfortable outcomes, and so it is easy to be tempted to take a different course. I remember as a high school senior standing by as classmates teased and bullied a younger peer; I did nothing because I was afraid of how it might affect my own social life. My means [i.e., doing nothing] didn’t justify my end [remaining in good social standing]. 

But as I look back, what I lacked was real courage, and a deep sense of empathy for another person’s plight. I was too concerned about myself to be willing to use the means that could have made the difference for him. The thing was, too, I had the status and respect at this point in my high school career to impact the situation, and yet I just stood idly by and acted as if it was just part of what happens. And although it is a memory that has somewhat faded, when it does resurface, it still burns because I know I did wrong in doing nothing at all.

In the end, I want my kids to do better than I did, and respond transparently, respectfully, empathetically, and ultimately courageously in whatever way they are called, even if the outcome is uncertain. There is no guarantee it won’t result in heartache and tragedy. But if as a community, we focused less on outcomes, and more on the process, I believe the means would not only justify the end, but the end would justify the means, and both would look a whole lot better. When a good “end” connects with a good “means”, it is a beautiful, rich reality because the parameter for success is no longer predicated on much of what we can’t control, but just on what we can. It doesn’t mean that people stop winning or losing, or achieving or failing, or thriving or struggling. It just means that everyone can all unite on a more transcendent goal—doing what’s right for the right reasons in hope of a better end.

( https://www.courierpress.com/story/life/wellness/2018/03/18/schroeder-why-end-doesnt-justify-means-but-means-can-always-justify-end/383735002/)

,

How to write a philosophy paper?

WHAT IS A PHILOSOPHY PAPER?

A philosophy essay is one that

clarifies a point (e.g., the differences between ‘resurrection’ and ‘reincarnation’),

defends a position (e.g., abortion is morally wrong),

argues against a position (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens)

recommends a view (“Don’t chase two rabbits all at once”),

gives a piece advice (e.g., “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you will die”), or

expresses one’s own life attitude (“When stuck in excrement, there is only one thing to do: March. It is better to drop death from exertion than to die in whimper.”—Wittgenstein), and so on.

How to write a philosophy paper?

2) A philosophy paper usually tries to persuade people to see things this way, or to do things this way.

3) In many cases, a philosophy essay structurally is like an enlarged argument:

the introduction of the paper corresponds to the conclusion of an argument;

the body part (usually with several paragraphs), and particularly the topic sentences in each of the body paragraph, are analogous to the premises of an argument.

A Sample Paper Analysis “Internet Censorship Must Be Stopped”

Sex, violence, explicit language, drugs, . . . Some people consider these subjects to be extremely inappropriate, while some people find nothing wrong with them. Still others do not think twice when they read about sex crimes in the newspapers, or when they hear Bart swearing at Homer on The Simpsons. Most people do not feel one way or another about this allegedly inappropriate material because it has become a part of life in the 1990's. Those few who would choose to act upon their dislike of this material try to censor it, be it on television, in movies, on the Internet, or anywhere else. Although people have a right to decide for themselves what is and is not inappropriate, censoring material pertaining to these subjects would be unfair to those people who enjoy it. Therefore, material on the Internet considered "inappropriate" by some people should not be censored.

Second Paragraph

There is quite a bit of material on the Internet that many people would consider distasteful, and much of this material can be easily accessed. Due to this fact, someone might unknowingly visit a Web site with this material and cause him- or herself mental harm ( Liston 4). This is not the issue, however. The issue here is whether this offensive material should be censored from the Internet. The fact is that it does not matter if a person enjoys this type of material or not because they are not forced to view it by anyone in any way. It is not the responsibility of the people who post such material on the Internet to worry about who will be looking at it. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the people to decide if this material is appropriate or not. In 1968, a system of film classification was adopted in the United States, rating movies for violence, sexual situations, adult language, etc. ( Konvitz).

Second Paragraph

These ratings give people a better idea of how appropriate a movie would be for them. On the Internet, however, one would have a very good idea of the content of a Web site, even without a rating system. People would know what is on a particular site if they already knew how to get there. It is their responsibility to make their own decisions as to whether or not this material is appropriate for them. If people feel there is a possibility they might be very appalled by this material, then they can choose not to view it. If people are not sure about this material, or if they are in favor of it, then they take an acceptable risk when they choose to view it. Undoubtedly, this material should not be censored merely because some people cannot make rational decisions for themselves.

Third Paragraph

Moreover, the people have a right to know. This statement was the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. He was said to have been "strongly against censorship of any kind, believing that people should have free access to all information" ( Greenhaven 12). Then, people could consider all of the information and make a more informed decision. The first amendment of the Constitution also states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. . . . " All material or information on the Internet would be protected by this clause.

Third Paragraph

Another law, the Freedom of Information Act, was passed by Congress on November 21, 1966. This law addresses more specifically the people's right to any information unless it is a matter of national security, violates a person's right to privacy, or deals with internal agency management ( "Freedom"). None of the allegedly offensive material the government would like to censor falls into any of these categories. Unquestionably, no matter how distasteful some material on the Internet may be, the censoring of this material would be unconstitutional.

Forth Paragraph

In addition to being unconstitutional, the government's attempt to censor inappropriate material on the Internet is very hypocritical. The government punishes people for "obstruction of justice," or withholding vital information from an investigation ( Liston 4). This could be considered a type of censorship, because people who withhold information are, in essence, censoring information about themselves or others which may be unfavorable to their cause. The government considers this type of censorship "dangerous" ( Liston 4) . . . but, how is this any different from censoring distasteful material on the Internet? The government becomes enraged when information is withheld from it, but has total disregard for people who enjoy this so-called offensive material.

Fourth Paragraph

Would not some of these people be furious if they were suddenly prohibited from viewing this material that they find unobjectionable? In addition, looking back on past events, one may remember in 1933 when Adolf Hitler, leader of Germany's Nazi party, held a massive bonfire of "Anti-German books" ( "National"). Although this is an example of censorship in the extreme, Hitler's book-burning is similar to the attempted censorship of Internet materials. Hitler eliminated all books which expressed opinions other than his and his alone. In a like manner, government officials are trying to censor "inappropriate" material . . . but inappropriate by whose standards?

Fourth Pargraph

The opinions of the few censors cannot speak for the millions of Americans, whether they find this material to be offensive or not. The government condemned Hitler's actions, considering them to be "dangerous," and rightly so. However, it now is attempting to do almost the very same thing: to censor information without the consent of the American people. Without a doubt, government censoring of supposedly inappropriate material on the Internet is very hypocritical.

Fifth Paragraph

In conclusion, allegedly offensive material on the Internet should not be censored. If the government is permitted to censor this material based on a few people's opinions, the censors would clearly be in violation of the Constitution. Furthermore, the government's attempt to censor this material is hypocritical; they denounce censorship in a few instances, but later seek to eliminate material labeled "inappropriate" to enhance the image of the government. If censoring this distasteful material is allowed to be carried out in this manner, what will be next? Books? Television? Movies? There is no way to tell how far the government would go if given the opportunity. Censoring material on the Internet is unconstitutional and hypocritical, and the effects are irreversible. It must be stopped. (by Adam Garlock, from http://www.cannet.com/~adam/netcensr.html)

image1.jpeg