"Exitus acta probat" is latin for "The ends justify means" which was originally said by Publius Ovidius Naso. In The Prince, Machiavelli says no matter how wrong the means are the ends are always justifiable. I disagree because I think whatever the ends are if the means are illegal, ordinary people must be punished according to the means and the ends should be ignored.
Machiavelli says a prince must do whatever it takes to save or maintain his state. The consequences will not be huge. Bunch of people being killed versus the whole state being destroyed: the first option is better if not the best. Also, if a prince saves the state he will praised and honored by his people. The reason according to Machiavelli is, "the masses are always impressed by the superficial appearance of things, and by the outcome of enterprise". I think one of the reasons people praise the prince is that they are self-interested(here supporting one of author's conceptions). They do not care about bunch of people being killed as long as they are safe. Machiavelli says, "In the actions of all men, and especially of princes who are not subject to a court of appeal, we must always look to the end". I agree for the actions of princes because he has to keep his power, people care more about their own safety than their prince's wrongdoings, and he cannot be judged in court. But, we must not look to the end in actions of all men. Ordinary people must be punished according to law. Even though if the ends are good, person committed a crime by the means. That's what must count - "committed crime" part. We must look at the means first, then, if it is okay move on to the ends. So, the ends do not(and must not) justify the means for all people.
I agree with you in many ways but when I read your text about be evil for the sake of good end, something came up to my mind. You write that being bad for good result and not being punished for this is for princes, people have high status in society. According to your point of view, ordinary people should be count as criminals when they did something against the law. But there is something that can be counter argument for this idea. Let's create a scene: think about a woman who is son or daughter is about to killed by an evil man in front of her eyes. And there is a weapon near her. She is desperate. Which situation makes her a criminal? whether saving her child with killing the evil man or not protecting her children because she is afraid of going to jail due to crime of murder. I think not killing man, and letting him to kill her child will have more disastrous consequences according to a mother. Going to jail be better choice than, making her child to be killed. Despite all the things that I've mentioned, person who killed anyone needs to be punished if he or she is not a ruler who wants his/her people to be well
ReplyDelete