Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Question · Explain Newcomer-friendly

“The ends justify the means”: obviously true or obviously false? I can’t decide which

Gemma Pritchard Contributor
· 4 replies · 230 views
Moral theoriesAnalyticModern EuropeanUtilitarianism#consequentialism#ends-and-means#everyday-ethics#rule-utilitarianism
Follow

I do stand-up in the evenings and work in a call centre in the day, and both jobs involve a lot of people saying “the ends justify the means”. My team leader says it when he wants us to hit targets by telling customers a tiny lie about wait times. A comic I know says it about stealing jokes, because the audience laughs either way.

Here is my problem. The phrase sounds obviously true: why would you do anything except for its ends? Nobody makes a cup of tea for the sake of the kettle. And it sounds obviously false: surely you can't do anything at all if the result is good enough.

I read somewhere that this is the central question in the debate about consequentialism. Can someone explain, in normal-person language:

  1. What a consequentialist actually believes about ends and means.
  2. Whether my team leader's tiny lie is justified on that view.
  3. Why the phrase sounds true and false at the same time.

I would prefer an answer that does not make me feel like I'm in a seminar. I tried a seminar once. It was like a gig where nobody laughs and everyone takes notes.

LikeAnswer
Follow4 answers

Members reply here. Reading is always free.

Sign in to reply

4 answers

Accepted answer

  1. Javier Morales

    ✓ Accepted answer Fellow

    The trick is that the slogan has a hidden word in it.

    Read one: “the end justifies some means.” Obviously true. You boil the kettle for the tea. Every theory accepts that most means get their point from their ends.

    Read two: “the end justifies any means.” Obviously false to almost everyone. Torturing a child to improve morale is off the table however good the morale.

    A consequentialist is not committed to read two, and here's why. She says an act is right if it produces the best overall outcome, and the means are part of the outcome. Your team leader's lie has consequences beyond today's target: customers who learn they were lied to stop trusting the company, staff who are told to lie get cynical, and complaints rise. Count all that and the lie usually looks bad.

    Some consequentialists go further. Mill, on some readings, and later rule utilitarians argue we should follow rules, like honesty, whose general adoption makes things go best, rather than calculate every case. On that view you do not tell the tiny lie even when this particular one would pay off.

    Why it sounds true and false: because people slide between the two readings. Your team leader says read one and means read two.

    Helpful · 2
    1. Gemma Pritchard

      Contributor

      “The means are part of the outcome” is going in a set. Thank you, Javier. And Sam's question is going straight to my team leader, though possibly not in those exact words, because I'd like to stay employed. The joke thief I'm just going to stop talking to. That one doesn't need a theory.

      Helpful · 1

Other answers

  1. Ethan Mercer

    Contributor

    Javier's answer is right, but I should add the uncomfortable bit, since I'm the effective altruism sceptic who gets asked this. A pure act consequentialist does accept read two in principle: if the outcome really were best, any means would be justified. The defence is that in the real world the cases where something horrible produces the best outcome are vanishingly rare, and we are terrible at spotting them. Critics say that defence makes the theory's verdicts depend on empirical luck.

    Helpful · 3
  2. Sam Ellery

    Contributor

    Debate-coach footnote: when someone uses this slogan on you, ask them, “Which means, exactly, and which end?” It is almost never used about tea. It is used to get you to stop looking at the means. Making them name both usually ends the argument.