The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means. What actually is a war? What would be its definition? Most of us would be tempted to justify any means we take up in any circumstances and call the situation a war.
Similarly, the tenth rule of ethics of means and end says that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
I think these rules depict the general human behaviour and response in response to different situations where their ethics are questioned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It is true that we have a tendency to portray everyday conflicts in our lives as full scale 'wars' thus permitting ourselves to resort to unethical means and try to create a wanted outcome.
Such misuse of excuses aside, I believe that in a real war (like in the full scale battles in history that raged for years and even decades), the concept and definition of ethics get distorted so significantly that our current common sense view of ethics would have never even been minutely applicable.
According to my perception, war here means a do or die situation. The individual can't fall back nor can he/she think of ethics at that point of time. The concept of ethics is subjective and varies depending on situation or position an individual is in. The mail sent by Ramnalinga Raju to the Satyam board said that " it was as if I was riding a Tiger ". It is an example of trying to justify the means by clothing it in moral argument.
Even in real wars, it is the end that matters not the means.Take the example of any war. Is there any justification to the means adopted to win the war by any nation? Can you justify the use of atom bomb by America on Japan to defeat them?
Post a Comment