Ethical Dimensions of the Existence of Personality

The Relationship Between Moral Ends and Means

In their activity, a person undertakes a dual task: setting a goal and finding the means to achieve it. The problem of the relationship between ends and the means of achieving them holds significant ethical importance, which has been a subject of reflection throughout the history of ethical and philosophical thought. All possible approaches to resolving this issue can be reduced to three fundamental perspectives, which differ from one another in principle.

The essence of the first, essentially an expression of immorality, can be summarized by the slogan: "The end justifies the means," a phrase attributed to Ignatius Loyola (1491—1556), founder of the Jesuit order, whose activity is a classic illustration of this principle in practice. This doctrine, primarily applied in politics, is better known as "Machiavellianism," after the Renaissance historian and statesman Niccolò Machiavelli (1469—1527), who advocated political pragmatism as a model for statesmen of his time, urging them to employ any means necessary to achieve "lofty and noble" ends.

An alternative viewpoint, the moralist perspective, fundamentally rejects the possibility of using morally questionable means to achieve an end. This perspective is represented by the American philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau (1817—1862), the founder of the principles of "non-participation" and "civil disobedience," and Leo Tolstoy (1828—1910), author of the concept of "non-resistance to evil through violence." The ideas they pioneered were further developed in the 20th century into a comprehensive ideological system by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Finally, the qualitative distinctiveness of the third viewpoint lies in the recognition of the clear dialectical interdependence between ends and means. This perspective was theoretically substantiated by the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel (1770—1831), who assigned to the end the function of determining the means, rather than justifying them. Depending on the goal, the appropriate means must be chosen. This implies that to achieve "lofty" and "noble" ends, one must necessarily employ means that correspond to them. Conversely, the use of immoral actions, deceit, or cruelty inevitably distorts and corrupts the end, replacing it with something fundamentally different, even opposite.

In any case, it should be noted that each of the above-mentioned fundamental positions regarding the relationship between ends and means in human activity has certain limitations, though each remains relevant today. The ongoing relevance, contentious nature, and incomplete arguments "for" or "against" any of these perspectives demonstrate the impossibility of finding a single "correct" and all-encompassing viewpoint that accounts for all the factors shaping human behavior. Evidently, the appropriateness of applying these perspectives must be determined by the specific situation, particularly the degree of cultural development of the society in which such conflicting and problematic situations arise and are resolved.