Southville International School and Colleges

Luxembourg St., BF Homes International, Las Piñas City 1740

Do the Ends Justify the Means? – Money and

Morality

Arevalo, Katrina Paola O.

Magdaluyo, Matthew Ethan C.
Ramos, Zyro
BS Accountancy
I. Introduction

Human actions are classified either good or bad. The action done having unknown results.
End results that determine the action of and individual and will also determine one’s morality. A
characteristic behavior in today’s society is the belief that the ends justifies the means. People take
are justified regardless of how one go about achieving the desired end result. One could look at all
the bad actions that had to take place to come to a particular end, but would be overlooking the
greater good that comes from those events having had taken place at all. The summation of all the
things can make for a better end result that one could have attained by conventional means.

Distinction from right and wrong defines one’s morality. The morality of an individual
enables one self to determine if their own actions are good or bad. One’s action has an equal
consequence depending on what action is being done. Consequence will always be the outcome of
an action, good action = to positive consequence, bad action = negative consequence. An action
will always have a result consequence no matter what happens, there will always be a consequence
in the end.

“A desired result is so good or important that any method, even a morally bad one, may be
used to achieve it”. As stated, there are end results which do not tell what really happened. The
end results are being changed because of excuses or other factors that are being applied. Money is
considered as one factor that may affect the end result. According to Karl Marx, “Money then
appears as the enemy of man and social bonds that pretend to self subsistence”. Money being used
in order to change bad to good will affect the end result of an action . The involvement of money
on the action affecting the result is considered immoral? Or moral?
II. Statement of the Problem

This study’s goal is to investigate different views with reference to the phrase “Do the Ends
Justify the Means?”. It also includes different factors in relation to the phrase such as money and
morality and how it affects people. When one is pressured or convinced or even willing to perform
an action that one considers to be bad or unlawful, does it corrupt one's character or can one
maintain a separation of character from action? Does one's character regulate one's actions or
generate a specific or required set of actions?

1. What makes an unlawful action morally acceptable?

2. What makes crime socially acceptable to people?
3. How do people go through their daily life knowing some immoral people are out in the
world?

III. Objectives

This study aims to emphasize the different factors that affects one’s morality, examine the
relationship between one's actions and one's character and also to investigate whether the ends
does justify the means. Listed below are the objectives of the study:

1. To identify factors that causes one to execute immoral acts.

2. To investigate on what makes unlawful actions moral.
3. To examine how people go through with life given the fact that immorality is widespread.
4. To evaluate how crimes can be morally acceptable.
IV. Review of Related Literature

The Forming of Good Character

Moral character is formed by one's actions. The actions, habits , and emotional reactions
of an individual of good character all are united and coordinated toward the moral and the good.
Since individuals are body/soul solidarities, activities of the body are activities of oneself, that is,
people are self-possessing, self-governing, and self-deciding. So as to be of good character, one
must know the good, demonstration in ethically good ways, and be inclined toward the good
through the development of virtues. Actions and character are intertwined so personally that one's
professional obligations, or even what is seen by others as one's obligations, cannot override one's
conscience without adversely influencing (and changing) one's character.

Character cannot be separated from the person. To be of good character means that one’s
habits, actions, and emotional responses all are united and directed toward the moral and the good.
In this, public actions cannot be separated from private actions. Both sets of actions affect one’s
character. For example, a physician believes use of contraceptives to be immoral yet prescribes
them in the office because he or she feels a duty to provide what the patient asks for, or a pharmacist
who believes abortion to be immoral fills prescriptions for the abortifacient RU-486. These public
acts affect one’s character even if one’s private belief is the opposite of the action. They leave
traces on one’s character. Not only do actions reflect the goodness or badness of one’s character,
one’s actions also change one’s character. The more one does an immoral action or recommends
an immoral action for others, the more it becomes part of one’s character to be the type of person
who condones that immoral action. In order to be of good character one must not only know and
desire the good, one must also pursue it in both private and public actions. Virtue is an aid in this;
it is the act of good character. Growing in the virtues, especially prudence (knowing what to seek
and what to avoid) forms good character. What is at stake is the integrity of the person. The
physician who believes that use of contraception is immoral must also act in ways that display that
belief and avoid actions that promote contraception use by his or her patients. (Mitchell, L. A.
(2015).
Right and Wrong in the Real World

A characteristic behavior in today’s society is the belief that the ends justifies the means.
This means actions people take are justified regardless of how one go about achieving the desired
end result.

Awhile back, organic businesses in Northern California are introducing herbal products
that soothes nausea and remedies vomiting, especially as suffered by chemo patients. The problem
here is that even tho California regulators had approved, federal agencies hadn’t approved: on the
national level, selling the drug was breaking the law. On the other hand, not selling the remedy has
a significant downside; it was consigning clients to debilitating suffering. When federal agents
look over these certain businesses, owners had to make a decision.

If the means justify the ends, one must follow the rules no matter the consequences - then
when agents asked business owners regarding the selling of medicine, the ethical action is to admit
it. One must tell the truth and the will mean the end of these businesses. On the other hand, if the
ends justify the means, the ethical interest focuses on the consequences of the act instead of what
one actually did, then the ethics change. If there’s a law forcing people to suffer unnecessarily, it
should be broken. And when federal agents ask whether these businesses are selling, one is going
to have an ethical reason to lie.

Across the entire field of traditional ethics, this is a foundational distinction. Is what one
do matters, or the consequences? It is difficult to get oriented in ethics without making a
preliminary decision between the two. No one can make a decision for someone else, but before
anyone can make it, an understanding of how each works should be reached.

Money and Morality

From Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, to Bernard L. Madoff to
the standard member of Congress fighting tirelessly to further the interests of campaign donors,
human history is full of examples of money’s ability to weaken even the firmest ethical backbone.
Money sows mistrust. It ends friendships. Investigations and experiments have found that it
encourages people to lie and cheat. As Karl Marx, the scourge of capitalism, noted, ‘‘Money then
appears as the enemy of man and social bonds that pretend to self-subsistence.’

Money was a clever and convenient invention; it was designed as a means of exchange and
a measure of wealth. But somehow that has changed; what was once solely a means to an end has
become the end itself, and what was a measure of wealth has become wealth itself. Take for
example agriculture, the purpose of which was to produce nutritious food whilst ensuring that the
land remained in good heart for all future generations and for the good health of biotic
communities. Agriculture was a way of life that gave farmers their dignity, and in turn cultivated
the crops with tender loving care and considered work intrinsically good. Then came money, which
changed everything: agriculture turned into agribusiness and the paramount purpose of it became
the making of money. Food became a commodity and yet another means of making large profits.
As a result British farmers – even those with 2,000 acres of land – cannot make a living, and farm
laborer’s are paid £10 an hour whilst bankers are paid £1,000 an hour.

Ethics, morals and human dignity are all secondary and subservient to the profit margin.
Bankrupt bankers have to be bailed out even though we can all see that they and other business
leaders are utterly incapable of solving the economic crisis. Politicians and policymakers have to
obey their desires. No wonder then that our governments are completely incapable of creating
conditions for the stability and wellbeing of people – because all social, political, educational and
communal values exist solely to serve economic growth, which simply means growth in money
supply, in GDP and in consumption. (Satish Kumar, 2012)

Moral Standard

A moral standard refers to the norms which oneself have about the types of actions which
we believe to be morally acceptable and morally unacceptable. Meaning to say that one should
know what is right and wrong on an action done knowing the difference of the results based on the
knowledge regarding moral standards. This means actions people take are justified regardless of
how they go about achieving their desired end result. For example, some students I have taught
justified lying on their resume because it could help them get a job.

In politics and government, lying and then justifying it through the ends vs. means
philosophy of behavior is a favorite past time. You may recall that former Director of National
Intelligence, James Clapper, made a false statement to Congress when he responded to a question
about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions
of Americans by saying “No sir, and “not wittingly.” We all know that was a lie borne out of a
belief the ends of collecting such data justified whatever means were necessary to get the data
regardless if it tramples on our rights under the Fourth Amendment that protect us against
unreasonable search and seizure.
The entire financial recession of 2008-2009 can be summed up as a group of investment bankers
who sought to become millionaires by trading in subprime mortgages knowing the homeowner
might never make the payments but not worrying about it since the bankers sold off those
mortgages to third parties who then assumed the risk. This created a problem of moral hazard
where the party that creates the achieved the desired end result by manipulating the means.

Power of Laws

There are a number of issues about the relationship between morality and law in a
(pluralistic, secular) democracy like the United States. Among them are whether legislation should
reflect moral principles, whether judges should interpret laws in light of moral values and
principles, whether laws should enforce morality, whether laws are binding if they do not reflect
moral principles, whether it is moral or not to disobey bad laws, and what gives law its authority.

Sometimes morality is confused with religion and I have written about that elsewhere. But
for purposes of this essay, it will not matter whether someone's moral principles are based on
religious doctrine or commands or not. The important traits will be the soundness, and perceived
soundness, of any moral principles, not their genesis. I am also not trying here to write a definitive
work about all the issues involving the relationship between law and morality, nor to restate all the
points others have already made about the issue. I do address. Instead I hope to simply shed some
additional light on aspects of the relationship between law and morality in a pluralistic democratic
country with a secular government. (Rick Garlikov, 2011)
V. Significance of the Study

Students and Readers. The study on Do the Ends Justify the Means – Money and Morality can
be a learning paradigm that would enhance students’ knowledge and those who are interested with
the topic. It will give readers a realization that when one is convinced or pressured or is even
willing to perform unlawful actions may corrupt one’s character ; one’s character may regulate
one’s deeds when provoked or introduced to different sets of situations. Data given will provide
information that can help evaluate students’ character and actions. This may also provide as a
guide in relation to different ethical questions that can lead to a different kind of perception that
could lead to awareness of what makes crime socially acceptable to people. This study may also
serve as a guide and reference for the students undertaking similar studies

Professors. This study may serve as an aid for discussions regarding related lessons and can help
tackle accompanying topics easier.

Future Researchers. This research will be a useful reference for researchers are planning to write
a paper that is related to Ethics.

VI. Conclusion

VII. Detailed Outline

This study about “Do the ends justify the means?” investigates the Human actions which
are classified either good or bad. Distinction from right and wrong defines one’s morality. The
morality of an individual enables oneself to determine if their own actions are good or bad. One’s
action has an equal consequence depending on what action is being done. Consequence will always
be the outcome of an action, good action = to positive consequence, bad action = negative
consequence. An action will always have an end result no matter what happens.

This study’s goal is to investigate different views with reference to the phrase “Do the Ends
Justify the Means?”. It also includes different factors in relation to the phrase such as money and
morality and how it affects people.
 This study’s objectives are to emphasize the different factors that affect ones morality,
examine the relationship between one's actions and one's character and also to investigate whether
the ends does justify the means.

This study’s review of related literature is about the actions, habits , and emotional
reactions of an individual of good character all are united and coordinated toward the moral and
the good. Character cannot be separated from the person. To be of good character means that one’s
habits, actions, and emotional responses all are united and directed toward the moral and the good.
In this, public actions cannot be separated from private actions.

This study’s significance could be used by students and readers who are interested in their
own actions or actions of others which would be classified either good or bad.

This study concludes that every persons action is affected by a lot of factors such as Money
and Morality, Moral Standard, Power of Laws.
VIII. Bibliography

Mitchell, L. A. (2015). Integrity and Virtue: The Forming of Good Character. The Linacre
Quarterly, 82(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000001

Joshua Halberstam, Ph.D. ( 2006). https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/profile/joshua_halberstam

Steven Mintz, (2018) https://www.ethicssage.com/2018/04/do-the-ends-justify-the-means.html

Rick Garlikov, (2011) http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/moralityandlaw.htm