"Means justifies the goal": the author of the utterance. Whose slogan is this?

We often hear this phrase, but with the fact that itmeans, basically we meet in the works of classics and contemporaries. Does the purpose justify the means? A question that can cause hundreds of people to rack their brains. The pragmatists will answer yes without doubts, but is it possible to say so from the point of view of morality?

Where did the saying come from?

If the end justifies the means, how to understand whichis the goal truly a good and worthy sacrifice? A good example in modern life is the death penalty. On the one hand, basically such punishment is awarded to people who committed serious crimes, and in order to prevent their repetition and the edification of the rest, they are deprived of life.

But who has the right to decide that a person is guilty? Is it worth it to create professional killers? And if a person has been convicted wrongly, who will be responsible for the execution of the innocent?

That is, interest in such a topic is fully justified. And it is logical that, together with modern technologies and the desire to still solve this eternal question, there is a need to find out who originally thought that this is permissible? Why did a person decide to hide behind high goals in order to justify his action? But even when searching for information, it is difficult to understand who actually is the author of this slogan.

In search of truth

One of the most reliable sources of informationtoday books are considered. It is from there that people get information, they learn history and, possibly, find unique facts. But on the subject of the expression "The tool justifies the purpose" it is difficult to find a concrete answer there. All because the statement has been for many years, it was used and paraphrased by many well-known thinkers and philosophers. Someone agreed, someone refuted, but in the end, finding the author was not so simple. The main candidates for authorship: Machiavelli, Jesuit Ignatius Loyola, theologian Hermann Bousenbaum and philosopher Thomas Hobbes.

Is it Machiavelli?

When people start to be interested: "The end justifies the means ... Whose is this slogan?", Most often the palm of primacy is given to the Italian historian and thinker XV-XVI centuries Niccolo Machiavelli.

He is the author of the famous treatise"Sovereign", which can safely be called a textbook for a good politician, especially those times. Despite the fact that hundreds of years have passed since his activities, some of his thoughts can still be considered relevant. But in his works there is no such expression. His views can to some extent be generalized by this phrase, but in another sense. The philosophy of Machiavelli is based on making the enemy believe in the betrayal of his ideals. To throw dust in the eyes and take unawares, but not to abandon them for the sake of "higher goals." His views imply not action against his ideals, where the means justifies the goal, but a political game.

The motto of the Jesuits

Of course, the next author after Machiavelliquotes Ignatius Loyola. But this is completely wrong again. You can not simply transfer the championship from hand to hand. Each of these thinkers views can be reflected in this phrase, paraphrased, but with the same essence.

But this only shows that the original source wasquite different, because over time, interest in the phrase only grows. Since the means justifies the goal, is this connected with the Jesuits? Yes. If you do a little research, it becomes obvious that the first statement was formulated by Escobar-i-Mendoza. Like Loyola, he is also a Jesuit, and quite famous. Thanks to him, some people believe that the phrase was the motto of the Order. But in fact, after the censure of Pope Escobar of Rome completely abandoned him, and the slogan of the Jesuits is: "To the glory of God."

The dilemma in modern times

In our era of tolerance and humanism (more precisely,aspirations for such ideals), is it possible to meet the opinion among the higher ranks that the end justifies the means? The examples are numerous, but they are rather based on subjective opinion, because none of the politicians will dare to say such a phrase directly. On the other hand, we have what has always been a tool for self-education. Books and their authors, who through the letter show the flaws of human society. Now, however, the area of ​​influence is not limited to books alone.

The characters of books, films, computer games andother modern works many times have to make a choice and decide whether the medium justifies the goal or not. The choice is made between the greatest and the smallest evil in the name of the common good. For example, the hero has to decide: is it worth sacrificing the village in time to prepare the castle for the siege? Or is it better to try to save the village and hope that there will be enough current strength without fortifications? In any case, it seems that the third option does not exist. But if ideals are surrendered, and the hero starts to decide who is worthy to live and who is not, can you say that his world will be saved? Of course, when one reads a story and delves into the essence, it may also seem that there is no other way. But in the end, usually the author shows the price of "good intentions" and gives the reader a chance to think about the possibility of avoiding a bitter end. Sometimes it's easier to close your eyes and convince yourself that you are doing the right thing. But not always the simplest way is true.

</ p>