The Leaders in History: The End Does not Justify the Means

A Phrase from Niccolo Machiavelli’s Book “The Prince” for The World Leaders

The end justifies the means is a phrase that is taken from Niccolo Machiavelli’s book “The
Prince.” This phrase has been interpreted differently by various people. It implies that any
method, however foul, cruel or illegal, used to achieve the targeted result is justifiable. Besides,
the statement has elicited a multiplicity of reactions among people across the globe. Thus,
some consider it to be correct while others strongly oppose it. Basically, the phrase is
customarily used to underscore the principles and ethics of deeds. A deed itself might be
disgraceful, but as the only key to achieving a target, it could be tolerable. This concept is
mostly used by people who want to justify their choices by relativism, as a way to clear their
conscience from their doings. Proponents of this statement in some cases use it as an excuse to
wreak havoc and cause mayhem. In their opinion, it is fair to use deception and fraud as an
implement of war. Those who are passionately convicted about their course often stop at
nothing when obtaining results, which to them is the only plausible outcome. A number of
individuals, in contrary, admit that there is no justification for any punitive measures taken in
pursuit of achieving a goal. Machiavelli, however, was a strong believer in the importance of
prosperity in all fronts – himself, his subjects and his state as a whole, and nothing would come
before all that.

In Machiavelli’s eyes, the priority of a Prince upon ascension to power would be to preserve
that power. His views depict his vehement intentions for doing anything that would lead to the
fruition of any desired end. In a ruler’s context, the end could refer to anything that would
impact the fortune and well-being of his subjects, as well as his position. In a smaller way, the
end may be our success and satisfaction, and our contemporaries. For a leader, the means
remain critical for legacy and reputation while the end is what really matters to the public. To
maintain the power and preserve legitimacy, therefore, a leader should guarantee the
gratification of the people. This is the basis of the election and re-election of some leaders –
what they have achieved for the people or what they vouchsafe to for the electorate. People do
several things with the greater good in consideration. Machiavelli, in his turn, argues that
humans are naturally indecisive, capricious, and selfish. This is one of the least contended
suggestions of all the postulates in “The Prince.” Hence, people try to get what they want, some
with no regard to the cause. The outcome is more important than the steps taken to achieve it.

The end does not justify the means. The means by which one endeavors to realize the ends are
similarly as significant as the end itself. The methods used should be as honorable as the
outcome. It is apparent that many leaders and people have failed to internalize this phrase.
From their unfortunate viewpoint, it is insane to worry about what is right. The truth is,
however, that this phrase is a summary of one of the chief principles of morality. It means that
certain vital principles are essentially acceptable, and their violation cannot be justified by
having a purported good in one’s mind. For instance, one cannot attain justice if they fail to
abide by the ideals of justice. These principles should never be overlooked or obliterated since
doing so cohesion and harmonious co-existence of humans is in danger. Fundamental ethics are
not meant to cause any harm to individuals. We live in free world, and nobody has the freedom
and right to impose their will on others. It is also a public obligation to be fair and just and to
defend what is right despite the situation. In the absence of morals in the society, people would
live in endless anxiety.

In as much as it is only the end that matters to people in most circumstances, it is not agreeable
for one to show his/her emotions of his/her accord as if rules and ethics are non-existent. It is
ethically unacceptable to use any necessary means. This is a principle that should forever be
upheld by leaders. However, many leaders would presumably act in a manner advantageous to
the people, but it should be known that these leaders have no absolute rights to make
decisions for their constituents. In fact, those decisions made and actions taken by leaders have
a great impact on the people. It is therefore of paramount importance that leaders remain
ethical in their endeavors to protect the interests of their subjects.

This essay argues against Machiavelli’s phrase “The end justifies the means”. The argument is
based on giving examples of the actions of leaders including Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi,
and Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan.

Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan

The United Arab Emirates federation was formed on the second day of December 1971.
Following its formation, His Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahyan, the ruler of the Abu
Dhabi emirate, served the emerging country as its president. It is difficult to comprehend the
foundation and organization of the UAE without the input of Sheikh Zayed in the picture. His
strongly held principles based on the religion of Islam, diligence and willpower propelled him
towards building a prosperous nation from an underdeveloped one (Wilson, 2013). Sheikh
Zayed was known for his big-heartedness both locally and internationally, and for his manner in
which he dedicated his life to serving people and his sole desire to create a better world.

The actual date of birth of Sheikh Zayed is not clearly known. It is, however, recorded that he
was born sometime in 1918 to His Highness Sheikh Sultan bin Zayed al Nahyan whose reign as
the ruler of the Abu Dhabi emirate ran from 1922 to 1926. He was the youngest of his four
brothers. The region was poorly developed at the time of Sheikh Zayed’s birth. The economy
was largely dependent on fishing, pearl diving, and small-scale agriculture in the inland’s sparse
oases (UAEinteract, n.d. b). As a young man, Sheikh Zayed traveled far and wide across his
country and gained a profound understanding of the land and its inhabitants. When petroleum
companies permeated the country to prospect for oil, he was assigned as a chaperone. As a
result, he thus gained a firsthand exposure to the trade that would later revolutionize the
development of his country. Admittedly, his insatiable hunger for knowledge led him to the
desert together with the Bedouin tribesmen. Through this experience, he learned a great deal
about the tribe’s way of life and their tactics of survival in the otherwise harsh conditions.

Sheikh Zayed was appointed as the Ruler’s Representative in Al Ain, a center that lies in the
inland east of Abu Dhabi in 1946. In his new assignment, he embraced the consensus and open
discussion, and his decisions were renowned for their astuteness, deep insight, and fairness.
With the dismal revenue, Sheikh Zayed successfully advanced Al Ain. He organized a simple
system of administration and facilitated the establishment of the first contemporary school in
Abu Dhabi while encouraging those close to him to make contributions towards the local
development schemes. The Sheikh reviewed the local rights to water ownership and made sure
that the distribution was more reasonable and just than before (Wilson, 2013). Thus, this step
has fast-tracked the development of agriculture and the center at large.

In August 1966, Sheikh Zayed became the Ruler of Abu Dhabi with an ambition to hasten the
improvement of the region. With the increasing oil revenues, he began the establishment of
schools, hospitals, and proper housing in addition to road construction. The experience he had
gained in Al Ain made him a proficient and visionary administrator. Moreover, the British who
had initially been protecting the Trucial States announced their withdrawal from the area in
1968. Sheikh Zayed promptly actively started to build closer links with the other Emirates. He
publically demanded the formation of a Federation that would be inclusive of the seven
emirates that initially constituted the Trucial States together with Bahrain and Qatar (National
Archives, n.d.). In due course, the seven Trucial states joined Sheikh Zayed in creating the UAE,
which officially appeared on the international arena in December 1971.

The UAE emerged during a period that was marred with a political tumult in the region. Iran
had got under control the islands of Tunb, a portion of Ras al-Khaimah, and had deployed
troops to Abu Musa in Sharjah. Owing to the prevailing border disputes and major disparity
among the seven emirates, projections made by foreign analysts pointed to the troubled
survival of the UAE. Sheikh Zayed kept a positive mind and prove the predictions of those cynics
to be merely speculative (UAEInteract, n.d. a). It is without a doubt evident that the peace,
success, and growth that is patent to the UAE today is as a result of the focus and foundational
role that was played by Sheikh Zayed. His gusto and fervor were crucial in propelling the UAE
toward current prosperity and self-sustenance.

Sheikh Zayed became a darling man to his people and his fellow rulers. The manner in which he
sought pacification and consensus won him a tremendous support. He was elected as the first
president of the UAE. His proven track record saw him re-elected to the seat, a capacity in
which he served until his demise. As a leader, one of the philosophies that he followed was that
the country’s assets and revenues were to be used solely for the people’s benefit and
gratification. In other words, he was a passionate proponent of justice and equality. His reign
was characterized by the empowerment of women as he championed for the provision of
education and employment opportunities to males and females alike. While at the helm of the
nation’s leadership, Sheikh Zayed borrowed a lot from the Bedouin customs of unanimity and
consensus. Traditionally, the principle had been enacted through the councils known as Majlis.
In these councils, rulers would convene forums in which every member of the society was
allowed to voice his/her concerns and make contributions towards the governance of the
emirate (Embassy of the United Arab Emirates, 2015). This was a form of what is currently
referred to as a direct democracy. With the country developing rapidly, it was necessary to
formalize the process of consultation. The Federal National Council was therefore instituted by
the Constitution of the UAE to bring the leaders of all the ethnic groups together. Nowadays,
this body serves as the federation’s legislature.

Sheikh Zayed was an outstandingly strong adversary of punitive dogmas and bigotry. He openly
condemned the acts of terror against humans and proclaimed that Islam was a religion of
compassion and forbearance. The leader practiced his ideals of tolerance more extensively. The
UAE was famed for enhancing harmony, mutual aid, and cooperation in the Arab world
(UAEinteract, n.d. b). Sheikh Zayed inculcated a culture of peaceful conflict resolution through
dialogue and finding a suitable middle ground for all the involved factions while averting any
options that would involve the use of force.

Sheikh Zayed identified the potential that the UAE had in taking part in international
pacification processes. He commissioned the UAE defense forces to participate in the Arab
Deterrent Force whose aim was to bring the civil discord and strife in Lebanon to the end. In
1999, Sheikh Zayed expressed his support for the resolution by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) to initiate its above ground operation to compel Serbia to stop its
inhuman and unethical activities of genocide against Kosovo. While making sure that the UAE
progressively adhered to international duties, Sheikh Zayed also clarified that the UAE’s
purpose was centered on reintegration and liberation. The policy implemented by the UAE in
Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and other nations is a clear reflection of Sheikh Zayed’s
aspiration that clearly reflects the desire of Sheikh Zayed to share the fortune of his state with
those in lack. Through organizations established by Sheikh Zayed, the UAE appears at the center
of providing relief and developmental across the globe (Embassy of the United Arab Emirates,
2015). Upon his death in 2004, Sheikh Zayed left a legacy as the Father of the UAE. However,
the principles and values that he introduced to the government remain central to the state and
its policies till now.

Nelson Mandela
The former South African president and activist Nelson Mandela contributed immensely to the
annihilation of the apartheid rule and was globally known for being an activist of human
freedoms and rights. He led both non-violent and forceful crusades against the despotic regime
by the whites in a racially striated South Africa during his time as a member of the African
National Congress party (ANC). Because of his engagements he was imprisoned for twenty-
seven years and became the symbol of the antiapartheid drive both in his country and in the
world. He was released in 1990 and continued to press for a racially liberal South Africa. Nelson
Mandela formed a government would guarantee the peaceful transition of the country from an
oppressive apartheid rule (History, n.d.). Even after unassuming his political roles, Mandela
stayed devoted to his advocacy for justice and harmony in South Africa and across the world
until he died in 2013.

Nelson Mandela’s devotion to politics became more undivided after the election victory of the
National Party which was dominated by Afrikaners. The party introduced apartheid, a system
that barred non-whites from enjoying fundamental rights and freedoms not to mention
participation in the government. The ANC developed and adopted a strategy to guarantee
citizenship for all the South African people through non-violent boycotts and strikes. Mandela
also involved himself in spearheading ANC’s defiance campaign against oppressive laws,
traversing the country to mobilize rejection of unfair policies and to promote a charter of
freedom. Together with his allies, they formulated the Freedom Charter which came to be
approved in 1955 by the people’s congress (Nelson Mandela Foundation, n.d.). Further,
Mandela also opened a law firm which provided pro bono legal services to victims of apartheid.

In 1956, Mandela and other anti-apartheid supporters were apprehended and tried for the
treason. They were found innocent of the accusations and were acquitted. Meanwhile,
pressure intensified within the ANC escalated. A radical faction became separated to found the
Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). A year afterward, the police killed non-violent black protesters in
Sharpeville. Anxiety, resentment, and insurrections caused suffering and damage in the country
after the massacre. The government then proscribed both the PAC and the ANC from operating.
Mandela was forced to hibernate and led to a more violent approach. In 1961, he co-founded
uMkhonto we Sizwe, (meaning Spear of the Nation), the armed section of the ANC (South
African History Online, 2016). The group, also known as MK initiated a campaign to sabotage
the government under the leadership of Mandela.

Mandela left the country illegally in 1962 to be present at a convention of African nationalists in
Ethiopia. He also underwent the training in guerilla techniques in Algeria. Upon his return, he
was arrested and imprisoned for five years having been charged with illegally traveling abroad
and initiating a worker’s strike. In July the following year, the police entered an ANC haven and
arrested a group of MK leaders who had come together to deliberate on the effectiveness of
putting up a guerilla insurrection. As a result, the gathered evidence implicated Mandela and
his associates. They were tried for treason, violent conspiracy, and sabotage.

Mandela and seven other defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment after an eight-
month trial which attracted the significant attention of international observers. Admitting to
some of the charges facing him in defense of the actions taken by ANC, openly denounced the
unfairness of the apartheid rule (History, n.d.). He emphasized his desire to have a democratic
and liberal society in which every person co-exists harmoniously with the same opportunities
for all. Mandela was even willing to die for the freedom he so much vehemently believed in.

During his time in prison, Nelson Mandela and other prisoners were mistreated. They were
subjected to hard labor with cruel punishments being applied to them for the least of offenses.
Despite these conditions, Mandela managed to earn a bachelor’s degree in law in the University
of London. He also mentored his fellow inmates and encouraged them to advocate for better
treatment without addressing to violent means. Notwithstanding his forced withdrawal from
the public eye, Mandela continued to be the symbol of the antiapartheid drive. In 1980, a
campaign to free Mandela made the name of the imprisoned leader a household term and
intensified the international uproar against the racism in South Africa. Consequently, the
government conceded before the mounting pressures. Mandela was offered liberty. In
exchange, he was to make a number of compromises – a deal which he emphatically rejected.
In 1988, Mandela was placed under house arrest. F. W. de Klerk, newly elected president,
revoked the injunctions on the ANC (Ottaway, 1993). He fell out with the conformists in his
party when he called for the end of apartheid and authorized the release of Mandela in
February 1990.

The free Mandela led his party and many other South African political factions to negotiating
with the ruling party for the termination of apartheid and the creation of an all-inclusive
government. Although the talks were held amidst tension and political instability, they earned
Mandela and de Klerk the Nobel Peace Prizes (The Nobel Foundation, n.d.). Millions of South
Africans turned out to vote on April 26, 1994. This day marked the first multiracial elections in
the history of the country. ANC won by a large margin and Mandela took an oath of office as
South Arica’s first black president on May 10 the same year. In a bid to accelerate national
healing, Mandela instituted the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to examine the acts
committed against humanity by both opponents and proponents of apartheid. As a president,
he also introduced a number of economic and social strategies for improving the people’s
standard of living. In 1996 Mandela understood the deliverance of a new constitution that was
rooted and emphasized on equality. The constitution instituted a strong government based on
the rule by the majority and forbade prejudice against minorities, the whites included.

Enhancing a racial integration, encouraging blacks not to revenge against the whites and giving
South Africa a facelift in the global arena were essential to Mandela’s plan for the country. To
this effect, he constituted an all-inclusive government and declared the South Africa a “rainbow
nation” which is in itself peaceful and at peace with the rest of the world. After his retirement,
Nelson Mandela’s devotion to championing for social justice and harmony remained
unwavering. He founded several organizations aimed at addressing and alleviating human
problems. Moreover, Mandela became a promoter of AIDS awareness in an environment where
the disease was masked with ignorance and stigma (Nelson Mandela Foundation, n.d.). In 2009,
July 18 was declared “Nelson Mandela International Day” by the United Nations in
acknowledgment of Mandela’s efforts to promote social equality, liberty, peace, and human
rights worldwide.

Mahatma Gandhi
In Mahatma Gandhi’s eyes, the importance of India’s movement for freedom was that
proceeded without violence. He detested forcefulness not only because people without arms
had slim chances of victory in a rebellion that involved weapons, but also because he
considered violence an inept weapon which caused more problems rather than solving them.
Violence in its wake would leave a trace of animosity and resentment with unpretentious
reconciliation being virtually impossible. This vehemence on nonaggression, however, elicited
different reactions from Gandhi’s critics in Britain and India alike. To the British, nonviolence
was a tool of disguise, while to the Indian detractors it was an utter sentimentalism (Nanda,
2016). The extremist Indian politicians, who had borrowed a lot from the revolutions thought
that force was pertinent to political liberation, and that it was absurd to compromise strategic
gains for ethical rather than political reasons.
Gandhi’s absolute commitment to diplomacy generated a rift between him and Indian elite.
This rift was only provisionally bridged at moments of intense political exhilaration. Even his
closest associates were willing to adopt his dogma of nonviolence but only to its reasonable
end. From their viewpoint, embracing peace in a world in which the use of force was the norm
was rather foolish. Besides, Gandhi’s ideals on devolution were considered as a threat, as they
would lead to the wilting of the state (Lal, 2012). Persons tasked with shaping the government
of independent India considered the principle of nonviolence impractical in the political arena.
They, however, did not contest the supremacy of this principle.

Gandhi presented the world with the conceptions of peaceful disobedience and nonviolence.
Basically, he proved that political and social changes could be achieved through compassion
and love, contrary to the universal belief in the effectiveness of fear and force (GandhiServe
Foundation, 2012).He employed tactics such as boycotts and peaceful non-conformity to the
rule of the colonial masters. The fact that Gandhi was not willing to compromise his ethical
principles and standards made his actions morally legitimate. From his point of view, the means
and the ends were inseparable. Furthermore, Gandhi found his principles in religious books and
philosophical writers emerging as one of the earliest persons to apply such principles in a
significant political campaign (Gandhi, 2009). As a result, these ideologies together with his
persistence in pursuing religious tolerance, perpetual truth, and social justice elevated the
awareness of many Indians.

The British colonialists in India went through a hard time and finally withdrew their rule over
India. This is because Mahatma Gandhi would effectively initiate several protests against the
authorities, but the peaceful nature of these protests complicated their neutralization. Gandhi,
in his turn, encouraged his supporters to practice self-discipline in readiness for self-
governance. He said that the people had to demonstrate that they were worthy of
independence (Gandhi, 2009). Other leaders, however, opposed Gandhi’s sentiments and
maintained that whether or not Indians would manage their affairs effectively, their right to
independence was unquestionable. Gandhi also disagreed with factions that asked for the
upheaval of the British rule by acting directly.

Gandhi beseeched the Indians to embrace non-violence and would terminate his campaigns if
they demonstrate their violent intentions. In 1930, he led a legendary protest against the novel
Salt Acts. Scores were apprehended, and Indian prisons became overpopulated with supporters
of independence. However, at the peak of the campaign, some Indian activists killed a number
of British neutrals. Consequently, Gandhi demanded the end of the march citing India’s
unpreparedness for independence (Nanda, 2016). This move disappointed many Indians who
were addicted to attaining a desirable freedom. Some radicals, however, continued with the
push for independence.

Principally, Gandhi strived to identify to realize and overcome his own inadequacies in an
attempt to transform himself. He aimed at treating all creatures and beings with utmost tried to
meet all living beings and creations of nature with great reverence and meekness. He stood
firm in defending his beliefs using peaceful means and to him, a compromise was never a
difficult choice to take (GandhiServe Foundation, 2012). Thus, Gandhi liberated his country
from the shackles of colonialism and steered his people to independence. Not only did he
champion for political rights but also struggled for equality in the economic and social fronts.

Conclusion

The end, certainly, does not justify the means. Looking at the lives of the above-discussed
leaders and their resolution to remain ethical in their endeavors fortifies the legitimacy of this
statement. Machiavelli’s concept gives a leeway for the justification of choices with relativism
and contends the supremacy of morality and ethics in decision making. Radicals and extremists
often take advantage of this principle to perpetuate inhumane acts that would otherwise be
circumvented by the adoption of the gold standard approach – pacification. The adoption of
Machiavelli’s principle in problem-solving in most cases leads to the worsening of already bad
situations instead of solving them.

Sheikh Zayed, the founding father of the United Arab Emirates, took his guns when it came to
matters principles. His strong belief in dialogue and consensus as the tools for conflict
resolution has led to the stability and prosperity of the UAE. Despite hailing from a monarchial
family, Sheikh Zayed protected the equal treatment of all and condemned all forms of
prejudice. He provided equal opportunities to all his fellow countrymen, men, and women alike.
With Islam teachings imbibed in him, Sheikh Zayed abhorred terrorism and proclaimed his
religion as one of peace and love. His life and contribution to the transformation of a formerly
underdeveloped country to one that is held in high regard internationally point to the benefits
of upholding fundamental principles of ethics at all times.

South Africa’s first black president, Nelson Mandela, is yet another example of a leader who
exemplified the advantages of upholding morality. He rose to liberate his fellow blacks and
other oppressed factions during the punitive apartheid rule in his country. Despite the harsh
treatments that Mandela and his supporters were subjected to, revenge and retaliation were
not an option for him. He encouraged his fellow freedom fighters to proceed non-violently in
the push for a multiracial South Africa. On his election as the president, Mandela proposed such
measures that would promote reconciliation and healing in the country which had been
thronged with resentment and animosity for a long time. He formed a multiracial government
and protected the interests of the minorities. Mandela took no drastic actions against the
whites who had oppressed him. Instead, he opted to forgive while coming out strongly against
social injustices.

The principles of nonviolence and peaceful disobedience remained to the foundation of

Mahatma Gandhi’s pursuit of India’s independence. To him, nonviolence was not merely
abstaining from violence. In essence, he viewed it as an avenue to fighting oppression and
bringing about transformation. Though faced with opposition, Gandhi did not waver in his
stand. His peaceful methods disoriented the British who opposed to granting India
independence. One can learn an important lesson from the examples set by these exemplary
leaders.
In as much as success and the achievement of targets is desirable, it is very important that
people opt for means that preserve human dignity. The election of such means should be done
with significant consideration as those which are used to achieve an end have ramifications
which can either be positive or disastrous.

Source: https://primedissertations.com/essays/history/the-end-does-not-justify-the-means/
When Lady Macbeth, hearing about the apparitions of the witches and their prophetic words,
then learns that King Duncan will visit and stay at their castle, then the thought of murder
coincides with Fate. The words of the witches, Macbeth’s “black and deep desires,” and her
ambition all converge to make the murder of Duncan “legitimate” in her eyes, for good and evil
are relative—the sophistry of evil. If fair is foul, then man is animal and never needs to hear the
voice of conscience or suffer the shame of guilt. If fair is foul, then woman is man and can do
bloodier deeds than soldiers, even smash the brains of a nursing infant “while it was smiling in
my face.” Macbeth and Lady Macbeth presume that the end justifies the means and that the
moral law ceases to operate in their special case as if they do not possess a human nature. In
Machiavelli’s famous words from The Prince, fortune is a woman, and he who would conquer
her must seize her by force. Rather than let time take its course and let events determine
Macbeth’s future, they will rape fortune, kill the king, smear the blood on the groomsmen to
implicate them of the crime, and murder Banquo. Lady Macbeth, like the witches, speaks in
half-truths, imagining only the glamour of kingship but never foreseeing the guilt that will
torment her soul. Invoking evil spirits, she talks and acts as if she has no feminine nature or
maternal instinct—a woman who can will herself to become a man as glibly as the witches can
say foul is fair: “Unsex me here,/ And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full/ Of direst
cruelty…. Come to my woman’s breasts/ And take my milk for gall, you murd’ring ministers….”
As they surrender to the wiles of the Weird Sisters who change the meanings of words and
speak in gibberish, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth ignore the truth of the nature of things that
speaks to them in their consciences.

They ignore the truth that man’s nature is rational, not animalistic: Lady Macbeth’s intelligence
eventually acknowledges the duplicity of the witches “Naught’s had, all’s spent, / Where our
desire is got without content.” They ignore the truth that man’s nature is moral, not lawless.
The assassination of King Duncan produces an unforeseen guilt that the Macbeths conveniently
ignored. Instead of a perfect crime with no evidence to implicate the murderers—one blow
“the be-all and the end-all”–the murder of Duncan causes a paranoia that precipitates more
murders, violence that afflicts Macbeth’s conscience and makes him envision Banquo’s ghost
during a banquet. Another upshot of the murder is Macbeth’s sleeplessness (“Sleep no more! /
Macbeth does murder sleep”) and Lady Macbeth’s constant sleepwalking and washing of her
hands (“Out, damned spot, out I say!”). Just as every human being sheds blood when wounded,
every human being suffers guilt when violating the moral law.

Nature will out. Lady Macbeth is not a ruthless savage who can kill wantonly but a woman with
a feminine sensibility. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are not godlike arbiters of life and death but
fallen, mortal creatures subject to human fallibility and concupiscence. Their tragedy proves
that the eternal nature of things does not change, despite the witches’ riddles about fair is foul,
despite Macbeth’s overweening ambition, despite Lady Macbeth’s boasts that her motherly
milk can become murdering gall, and despite the witches’ reassuring cunning lies that Macbeth
is invincible: “none of woman born/ Shall harm Macbeth” and “Macbeth shall never vanquished
be until Birnam Wood move to Dunsinane.” Finally Macbeth comprehends the artfulness of evil.
When Macbeth learns that Macduff was “from his mother’s womb/ Untimely ripped” by
Caesarean section and discovers that his enemies approach camouflaged with leaves and
branches from Birnam Wood, he is no longer confounded by the duplicity of evil but sees it in
its horrific ugliness—a lying, flattering voice of temptation that reduces an honorable soldier’s
noble life to “a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.”

Source: Kalpakgian, M. (2013). Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Crisis Magazine: The Civilized Reader.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/shakespeares-macbeth
Human nature is naturally focused on outcomes. We can deal with a difficult, sad story if it has
a happy ending. We love when our favorite team wins even if the game was “ugly” at times.
Conflict that is effectively resolved, or peace that has been accomplished, often has a way of
overshadowing some really challenging times.

But as young kids, we learned that the “end doesn’t justify the means.” In other words, a
positive outcome isn’t, well, a good thing if the methods used were dishonest or harmful to
others. If a team won a big game (of which winning is good), but used dishonest means
(perhaps by deflating footballs), the outcome itself is tarnished. If people gave gifts to the
underprivileged, but did so by stealing them from others, stealing would undermine the
charitable act.

Ultimately, the underlying message of the adage is that only one thing matters more than
outcome. And that is how we got there, including the reasons and processes we used to
accomplish what we did. Although society has a way of still rewarding and idolizing those who
succeed despite dubious, or downright despicable means, the saying itself still rings true, and
science supports that reinforcing good means versus preferred outcomes does pay off. For
example, studies indicate that when we praise effort over performance in the classroom,
students end up actually doing better academically and psychologically. On the contrary,
cheating or avoiding hard classes might keep your GPA high, but using these means never
justifies the end result.

Yet as often occurs, one principle can suggest a related one. Thus, I make the case that although
the “end doesn’t justify the means”, the “means can always justify the end.” To further explain,
I must first elaborate on the word “means.” By means, I am not just talking about the
behavioral methods by which something is accomplished, but also the underlying purpose(s)
that is undertaken. Let’s use an example of a longstanding, serious personal conflict with
someone else. Many people, especially guys in relationships, are taught that it is best to “avoid
the conflict” [means] to keep the peace [end]. On the surface, this might seem like a noble,
wise route to take. But for most people and circumstances, this strategy backfires because
people become more bitter, disengaged, and ultimately unable to effectively resolve an issue
that is central to their well-being and that of their relationship. So, although it is difficult (and
can often increase conflict and uneasiness in the short-term), addressing the conflict
respectfully, transparently, and empathetically [means] to improve the well-being of the
individuals and relationship involved [purpose] is often the key to resolving a conflict [end].

As the example denotes, the key to effective “means” are utilizing respectful, transparent, and
empathetic methods for an underlying purpose of bettering not just self, but others and the
situation as a whole. Certain areas of service or action necessitate a specific level of
competence (e.g., rewiring a home or performing surgery), and part of using virtuous means is
being transparent and responsible when taking on these tasks. But many of our daily
undertakings involve a deed that requires no level of expertise, but behooves us to consider the
“means” we are using. And if we are using means that adhere to the guidelines I mentioned,
then no matter how horrible the outcome, the “means do justify the end”. For example, if an
adolescent feels called to speak to his father honestly, respectfully, and compassionately about
how the father’s drinking is affecting family members, there is no guarantee the outcome will
be good; in fact, the father might physically or verbally lash out towards him or others, and the
outcome might seem anything but positive. But the means for what was done would justify any
end that occurs.

In saying all this, what we are ultimately trying to teach our kids (and embrace ourselves) are
the virtues of courage and altruism (unselfishness). Both often require the spirit of one to
enable the other, but they also entail a deep abiding pursuit of what is honest, true, and good.
Sometimes this pursuit leads to what are seemingly negative and uncomfortable outcomes, and
so it is easy to be tempted to take a different course. I remember as a high school senior
standing by as classmates teased and bullied a younger peer; I did nothing because I was afraid
of how it might affect my own social life. My means [i.e., doing nothing] didn’t justify my end
[remaining in good social standing].

But as I look back, what I lacked was real courage, and a deep sense of empathy for another
person’s plight. I was too concerned about myself to be willing to use the means that could
have made the difference for him. The thing was, too, I had the status and respect at this point
in my high school career to impact the situation, and yet I just stood idly by and acted as if it
was just part of what happens. And although it is a memory that has somewhat faded, when it
does resurface, it still burns because I know I did wrong in doing nothing at all.

In the end, I want my kids to do better than I did, and respond transparently, respectfully,
empathetically, and ultimately courageously in whatever way they are called, even if the
outcome is uncertain. There is no guarantee it won’t result in heartache and tragedy. But if as a
community, we focused less on outcomes, and more on the process, I believe the means would
not only justify the end, but the end would justify the means, and both would look a whole lot
better. When a good “end” connects with a good “means”, it is a beautiful, rich reality because
the parameter for success is no longer predicated on much of what we can’t control, but just on
what we can. It doesn’t mean that people stop winning or losing, or achieving or failing, or
thriving or struggling. It just means that everyone can all unite on a more transcendent goal—
doing what’s right for the right reasons in hope of a better end.

Source: Schroeder, J. (2018). Why the end doesn't justify the means, but the means can always
justify the end. Courier & Press.
https://www.courierpress.com/story/life/wellness/2018/03/18/schroeder-why-end-doesnt-
justify-means-but-means-can-always-justify-end/383735002/
In 2014, a federal court found that an American lawyer fabricated evidence, bribed court
officials and intimidated judges as part of a lawsuit in Ecuador against a U.S. oil company. In its
500-page opinion the court declared that “Justice is not served by inflicting injustice. The ends
do not justify the means.” In other words, one cannot commit a series of knowingly fraudulent
and illegal acts, even if purportedly done in the name of a noble cause.

Source: Boutrous, T. (2017). The Ends Do Not Justify The Means. HuffPost.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-ends-do-not-justify-t_b_10860438

Machiavelli: Which balance between Ethics & Politics ?

Does the end justifies the means ? Machiavelli gives a complex answer to this fundamental
politic problem.

In the Prince, Machiavelli is clearly warned against any attempt to turn what is, because
Machiavelli’s philosophy comes from the nature of men. Hence, The prince must take into
account the actual realities. He must be aware and be done with, the specificity of social space
and political context of its action. In this space, dominates the appearance, the prince can not
ignore it, and must know himself in play, otherwise it will be trapped in this false duality (be-
appearance).

Thus in Chapter XVI we see that the prince should be careful about what they say. Reputation,
rumor, are fantastical constructions that can be remotely qualities and defects of the prince,
but it is not to turn away, on the contrary, you have to enjoy it, anyway, the Prince is not the
master of public opinion, or the impression he gives. It must ensure his appearances, since we
cannot do without, and Machiavelli said that it should be done with the purpose to be loved by
his people. His behavior is justified, as he says throughout his book, in that its aim is to defend
the state, and seek to perpetuate it.

We see here that the Machiavellian prince is “Machiavellian” or a tyrant indeed, what it means
to Machiavelli, is not that the prince does what he wants, according to his whims, his good will,
but it is a fragile, having to practice in a fragile world, and dependent on whatever is “on the
outside.”

The prince is tripling “dependent”:

– it depends on the constitution;

– it depends on the company, or groups that have favored its access to power;

– the moods of each class is changing, we must not make its power to the satisfaction of
immediate needs (as, in particular, people quickly forget past favors, cf.chapitre XXVII).

If it is to be loved, it must also be above all fear, but for the sake of the length of the state.

The political virtues are therefore aligned with the private virtues of friendship and mutual
trust.

This portrait of the Prince has, analysis, and if it refers to the doctrine of the relationship
between fortuna and virtu, nothing cynical. Machiavelli insists only that the prince recognizes
the mobility of all things, and they also recognizing thereby the need to remain alert to
changing circumstances. Giving advice to princes, Machiavelli wants to avoid that the
precariousness of their power, in addition to behavior inconsistent with the political space.

Examples of the view that cruelty well used is a political virtue:

– the inhuman cruelty of Hannibal in the war;

– the pacification of the Romagna by Cesare Borgia: to pacify the country, he put his head
Ramirro Orco, a man “cruel and expédtif” and gave him full powers. He managed to quickly get
a reputation. But then, Caesar thought that such full powers were no longer needed and could
make him odious, for he knew that the stringent measures taken by Ramirro had caused some
hatred. C. would therefore show that if cruelty had been committed, it was not his fault, but
because of the violent nature of his subordinate. He did then cut into two pieces on the main
street of the city, next to him with a piece of wood and a bloody knife. The ferocity of this
spectacle engendered in the populace a state of satisfaction and amazement.

Machiavelli therefore requires a vigorous and judicious use of both virtue and vice, depending
on the circumstances may require. It is the sensible alternative of virtue and vice is “virtue”
(virtu). In these passages, therefore, Machiavelli speaks of morality in a totally different way
than the classics she opposes the “goodness” …

Extract from The Prince, by Machiavelli:

“A skillful legislator, who intends to serve the common interest and that of the homeland rather
than his own and that of his heirs, must use all her industry to attract to itself all the power. A
wise man will never condemn someone for exercising a way out of the ordinary rules to set a
monarchy or a republic based. What is desirable is that if the accused is the result of excuse if
the result is good, he is acquitted, this is the case of Romulus. This is not the violence that
restores, but violence should be condemned to ruin. The legislature will have enough wisdom
and virtue not to bequeath to others the authority he has taken in hand with men being more
prone to evil than good, his successor might misuse of the authority for his part he will have
well worn, and in fact one man is capable of forming a government, but the duration is short
and the state and its laws if the execution was placed in the hands of a single ; a way to assure
it is to entrust the care and custody of many.”

Source: https://www.the-philosophy.com/end-justifies-means

The popular phrase "the end justifies the means" is often used in politics, business and in most
social activities. This phrase, mistakenly attributed to the writer Machiavelli in his famous work
The Prince, emphasizes that the objective of the action is more important or justifies the means
or ways of achieving that objective.

It is assumed that if the end is lawful, so are the means. Despite the acceptance of this popular
wisdom, these words are really far from Christian ethics in which both the end and the means
must always be pure and reflect the values of Christ.

Source: Esqueda, O. (2019). The end never justifies the means. The Good Book.
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2019/the-end-never-justifies-the-means
The ends justify the means — Is this biblical? Do the ends justify the means?

When a person says "the ends justify the means" they are saying that if the end result is noble
enough, it will justify whatever measures are taken to achieve that goal. For example, if your
goal is to save lives, it's okay to cheat, steal, and lie to accomplish your goal. More often, the
scenario is something less drastic, such as exaggerating one's skills on a resume in order to get a
job that will provide for one's family.

The reason that "the ends justify the means" is such an ethical dilemma is that it allows small
immoralities to take place in order to achieve larger moralities. Who cares whether you
exaggerate some data, if it means your family will have food to eat? Who cares about stealing
from the rich if you can give to the poor? A very common question in ethical debates on this
issue is, "If you could save the world by murdering someone, would you do it?" Murder is
wrong, as we all know. But saving the world is a good and moral thing. But what kind of world
are we saving if we save it by murdering someone? Wouldn't that open the door to a world
where more atrocities are justified?

The problem with the "ends justify the means" philosophy is that it puts the law into the hands
of human beings, and makes the law subjective. Most men and women are geniuses when it
comes to justifying our behavior. We can rationalize any action if the motivation for the goal is
strong enough. That is exactly why the ends cannot justify the means—it is a recipe for
complete chaos. Its logical outcome is that each person, or group of people, decides what is
moral or immoral, based on the situation. The opposite situation is where a set of morals and
principles are agreed upon by everyone. This is how healthy societies operate—by setting rules
that everyone must follow, and then punishing offenders.

But what about personal morality? What if we encounter this dilemma in a personal situation
that does not involve the law of the land? Perhaps we feel we need to lie to protect someone's
feelings. Maybe we feel we can cheat on our spouse because they've made us unhappy. Maybe
we're okay with running up our credit cards because the goal is to buy Christmas gifts. It is quite
likely, if we each were to examine our lives, that we would see ourselves justifying the ends
with the means all over the place.

SOURCE: Compelling Truth. https://www.compellingtruth.org/ends-justify-means.html

If morality is relative, and that “the end justifies the means,” the world will be a total wreak
havoc. There will be no more right or wrong. It will be OK to steal if it were to feed my family. It
will be OK to kill, if the person killed was a rapist. The end justifies the means philosophy leads
to a more daunting society where lawlessness prevails. It pervades all laws and morality and
puts them in a circus.

Source: Sarmiento, H. (2020). 

What are some examples of the ends do not justify the means?

How about we use a current example that relates to what is going on today.

If we take away the privilege, and right, to privately own weapons in order to save lives in
school shootings… that seems on the surface like a reasoned solution, right? Get rid of guns, no
more killing.

Outlawing guns has been done in other nations.

But let’s use the Soviet Union in 1923 when Joseph Stalin came to power. In the thirty years of
his leadership, his government killed somewhere between 23 an 60 MILLION citizens.

Now, let’s ask one of those 60 million citizens how they feel about giving up private ownership
of weapons…

(Crickets chirping)

Those are real numbers, and real people. But the numbers don’t include Nazi Germany and the
18 million killed by their own government, or Cambodia under Pol Pot and the 3 million killed
by their own government. And that’s just the short list…

That is an example of the ends do not justify the means,

Source: Todd, E. (2018). Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-the-

ends-do-not-justify-the-means?share=1
When you hear somebody say they will do whatever it takes, the end has become the only
criteria. As an emotional statement, that’s fine but as an actual policy, it invites chaos.

Our response has to be proportionate and it has to be lawful or you end up with retaliation
wars.

Think of the war on drugs in the Philippines. I don’t live there so I am only going by news report
of drug uses and suppliers being shot in the street without and due process. The President is
presented as encouraging social violence in a crusade to stop the drug problem. I am not
prodrugs, but this solution could be used by people to settle any kind of score; Oh I stubbed
him because he was selling drugs. Is drug taking worse than murder? Killing all the suppliers and
users amounts to mass political murder and I am sure will cause problems in that country for
years to come.

Source: Nicol, M. (2019). Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-the-

ends-do-not-justify-the-means?share=1

A Machiavellian Perspective

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 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.

The statement that the ends justifies the means can be traced back to Niccolo Machiavelli. The
closest he came to it was when he expressed his view in Chapter XVIII of The Prince:

“There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality (appearing to be
religious), inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it
belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you.”
Machiavel_Offices_Florence

In this quote from Chapter 18 of The Prince about keeping faith, or being true to your word,
Machiavelli is instructing a Prince on how to behave and how to keep up appearances. He says
it’s very important to appear merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. He also says that
one must be prepared to act in a manner contrary to the appearance to keep up the
appearance. This is because everyone can see what you appear to be, and only a few will get
close enough to touch you and actually find out what happened.

These people (each with slightly different reasons and motivations) are all about appearing as
they wish people to see them. Even if it is nothing like what they really are, even if they are
saying the exact opposite of what they will eventually do, they know that few will see through
their appearances. So, for Machiavelli, to appear to be doing something is good enough even if
the actor has no intention of doing so, or achieving an end result far outweighs how we got
there; what road we took; and whether our behavior was ethical or not.

The reason the means are important, maybe more important than the ends, is how we get to
our goal is just as important as getting there. In other words, destiny tells us what we are to the
world, but journey tells who we are; it’s the journey that unlocks our potential and establishes
who we are as a person and what motivates us towards action.

Source: Mintz, S. (2018). Do the Ends Justify the Means?

https://www.ethicssage.com/2018/04/do-the-ends-justify-the-means.html
Did Machiavelli Actually Say, “the Ends Justify the Means?”
Niccolò Machiavelli never said, “the ends justify the means,” although he did allude to a
complex version of the concept in his Prince and other works. [1][2][3]

Machiavelli said things like:

“For although the act condemns the doer, the end may justify him…”
Discourses: I, 9

In all these quotes, some faithful translations, some liberally rephrased over the years, some
offered on this page, some not, the meaning is the same:

Machiavelli in all cases is implying that “the means” matter, and “the ends” don’t magically
justify them, yet sometimes it is worth accepting all the ramifications of “unjustifiable means,”
and the damage they do to one’s reputation, for the end goal.

In other words the ends don’t cancel out the means in every respect, but they may none-the-
less justify to some extent the original less-than-virtuous actions needed to secure the ends (it
is a warning not to be too pious when dealing with politics, not a suggestion that putting aside
virtue has no consequence).

Furthermore, Machivelli points out, that as far as the opinion of others is concerned,
appearances matter more than action. “Men judge generally more by the eye than by the
hand… one judges by the result.”

Both of the above concepts are notably different than the idea that “any means are magically
justified by ends.”

The above can be gleaned from the Prince chapters 6 – 9, especially Chapter 8 where he
describes “criminal virtue,” and chapter 18. Furthermore, the concept can be found throughout
Discourses on Livy.

With that in mind, although it isn’t fully misguided to attribute an ultra-realist grey area line of
political thinking to the Father of Modern Political Science Niccolò Machiavelli, this
consequentialist misquote is an over simplification of Machiavelli’s realist Republican
philosophy and the phrase itself never appears in his work in the way in which it is often passed
around in modern times (all an isolated and specific sentence “the ends justify the means –
Period”).

Below we further explain this stance.

The Difference Between Consequentialism and the idea that “the Ends Justify the Means.”
Before we dig into what Machiavelli did or didn’t say, we should quickly explain
consequentialism.
Consequentialism or Utilitarianism, the Greatest Happiness theory, justice, fairness, the core
theory of moral philosophy is often mistaken as the philosophical idea that “the ends justify the
means – Period.”

That snappy justification for everything “sinful and wicked” sounds good on paper at first to
some realists, but in practice, it is a slippery slope to despotism and immoral horrors. See Hitler,
eugenics, and other horrors like that.

A simple maxim like this is needs revision, and the actual utilitarian theories of everyone from
Plato to Bentham, to Mill, to Rawls essentially refute the simplistic take on the concept. These
are all good theories from the original utilitarian theory of Morals and Ethics.

So it is no surprise Machiavelli, the Father of Modern Political Science, presents a more complex
argument than the famous, but simplistic, pseudo-consequentialist quote alludes out of
context. Machivelli was not the odd philosopher out, he was the father of the modern line of
thinking that led to the other later philosophers.

Proving Machiavelli Never Said, “the Ends Justify the Means.”

Although we can point to different parts of the book, including most of chapters 6 – 9 to make
the points on this page, some of which I leave out, the best evidence has already been pointed
out correctly by CSMonitor.

The closest Machiavelli comes to actually saying “the ends justify the means” quote is from
Chapter XVIII of “The Prince.”

Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see
you, to few to come in touch with you. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know
what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have
the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes,
which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.

For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will
always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody because the vulgar are
always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are
only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on.
In this passage (which is subject to different translations), Machiavelli is saying “one judges by
the results,” not “do anything necessary to get your desired ends with no regard for virtue.”

He is poking fun at Princes, which fits with the idea that the Prince is essentially written as
satire and is trying to teach virtuous leaders how to overthrow tyrants and people how to form
Republics.
The Prince is written to look like a realist guidebook for hereditary princes. In reality, it is a mix
of underhanded insults and of underhanded tactics for virtuous leaders who lacked the criminal
virtue needed to ensure power in a world full of con men and tyrants.

As Rousseau says, “his is the book of Republicans.” If you agree with Rousseau, as I the author
clearly do, then like me you might think: “ah, how appropriately Machiavellian!”

Machiavelli hinted, both in his stated words and on the sly, that “if a virtuous leader came along
to overthrow a tyrant by force, that the ends would justify the means, that they would be
judged by the results, not the action of overthrowing.” He used backhanded language to
lambast the Medici family who had him arrested, tortured, and exiled from the government
when they took over his Republican Florence and turned it into a hereditary principality.

Beyond this, Machiavelli used a realist tone and explored the idea that Princes who come to
power through might tend to have an easier time retaining power, in chapters 6-9. He alluded
to his thought that “criminal virtue” is helpful for ensuring a show of strength when rising to
rule. He noted that criminal acts are not those of great leaders, but also noted that it is perhaps
better for a good leader to use a few calculated wicked tactics than for that leader to lose to an
even more evil leader who employees criminality as a matter of course.

Thus, the point is nuanced, but Machiavelli is hardly just saying “the ends justify the means,
morality doesn’t matter, feel free to use this as a justification for any questionable policy.” Not
at all.

Machiavelli’s core point then is no different than those made by other philosophers. The point
is that one should seek “the greatest happiness,” and in doing so, one must be willing to
embrace some vice and sacrifice some virtue. That point is also summed up in the first line of
Mill’s utilitarianism. In the rest of the book, he describes secondary principles that temper this
first principle. The same is true for Machiavelli. We can read a section as a call for shady tactics,
but his work in total is a realist account of political tactics, history, and a general call for
Republicanism.

Our political ancestors and great philosophical moralists did not condone all means to the
desired ends; their theories are much more enlightened, even an uber-realist like Kissinger
knows this.

DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? The ends can sometimes justify the means, and the ends
are often more important than the means. Sometimes, one must muster up criminal virtue to
ensure an end which brings the “greatest happiness,” but one must understand that we are
talking about the “greatest happiness” theory here. Thus, people should consider the
philosophy of consequentialism and consider the morality of the means as well as the result of
the ends, and not just seek their ends by any means without consideration. Machiavelli as a
political thinking, virtuous master, and republican would no doubt apply the same sort of
reason to the seeking of a perfect happiness theory. Truly, one could argue, that only a tyrant
would consider ends to justify means – period…

DeMichele, T. (2016). Machiavelli Said, “the Ends Justify the Means” MYTH.
http://factmyth.com/factoids/machiavelli-said-the-ends-justify-the-means/

Macbeth actions are not justifiable because all what he committed in order to obtain what he
wants were immoral ways because Macbeth kill a human who deserves to keep leaving by
helping others but Macbeth took his own decision without think in the consequences that he
was doing and these article said exactly the same the U.S do everything possible to obtain what
hey need and want by ignoring the problems that they can have in the future the don’t think
twice before they take a decision and the consequences that their action can bring.

Eventually another way that Macbeth shows that his actions are not justifiable is by the damage
that he caused to innocents persons that were related to him. When Macbeth took the decision
to kill the king and murdered him he knew that he was doing something wrong and that he has
to blame others so he can accomplish what he proposed, no one knew that he kill the king
except his wife Lady Macbeth but after Duncan’s death Macbeth accused to the servants who
were innocents about the crime, he did not care about them or what they could suffer he just
did it for his own benefice but his decisions let them to kill the servants because he thought
that it was the best and then Malcolm Duncan’s son become the suspect of his father’s death
because they thought that he wants to take control of the throne and be king. These actions
shows that Macbeth is able to do anything to obtain what he wants and how his own actions
are not justifiable and according to the article ‘’Ends Justify the Means’’ As Cops Illegally
Handcuff 40 Innocent Bystanders by Kurt Nimmo shows how sometimes people caused
damaged to innocent people this article said that police arrest and detained forty innocent
bystanders after a bank robbery in Aurora without any reason they just searched because they
believed that it was necessary but they knew that they were wrong and were violating the
people’s right specially the fourth amendment this accident reveals that many police do not
have a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. These article
support my point of view about how Macbeth’s actions are not justifiable and how his

Source: https://www.coursehero.com/file/p3356et/Macbeth-actions-are-not-justifiable-
because-all-what-he-committed-in-order-to/
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli, arguably the finest political theorist of his time, used his famous
work The Prince to tease out “means and ends” theory. He concluded that when it came to the
exercise of power, a ruler should use any methods available to maintain stability. The means
are irrelevant if the ends are positive enough to trump them.

A century later, Shakespeare stuck with the theme of "the end justifying the means". It is one of
the most important themes in Julius Caesar and Lady Macbeth was prepared to do whatever it
took to get her man into the top job. Shakespeare loved the theme so much he devoted an
entire play to its exploration. Not one of his biggest hits it must be said, All’s Well that Ends
Well has had a hard time making itself understood. No one is really sure it did end well; and for
400 years scholars have been arguing about whether it is a tragedy or a comedy.

The line between comedy and tragedy can be as blurry and opaque as the line between right
and wrong, and between justified and unjustified means to achieve often questionable ends.
Dozens of writers, philosophers and ethicists have devoted their lives to the exploration of this
fundamental dichotomy for centuries.…

Our propensity to pay way too high a price for our means to achieve ends of questionable value
is on the increase. We do it all the time….

We are paying an enormous price. A price that is not only too high, it will be paid by
generations to come. And we are paying it not for a great and noble end. We are not
overthrowing a dictator, waging a war for freedom, or even “protecting” our borders. We are
trading away a century of hard won rights for cheap pizza and the ability to track our driver’s
progress on our smart phone when it’s time to go home.  

Source: McEncroe, R. (2018). When the end justifies the means. Green Left.
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/when-end-justifies-means

THOUGH OPINIONATED:
Guilt. Blood. Murder. Greed. These words are what describe Macbeth in Shakespeare’s play
Macbeth. He listens to the Three Weird Sister’s prophecy, and Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are
so driven by greed that they kill family, friends, servants, and lose all the respect and love of
everybody just to be powerful. Macbeth was not like this at first, he was kind, respected and a
good fighter. It is kind of sad to see what power can do to you. The video made by East
Hollywood High School, really tells how Macbeth was driven by his wife, and the witches
prophecies. He was a respected man who turned away every friend by his greed and lies. This
film uses production, the actors tone, and set design in unique ways to draw the attention of
the viewer’s to the circumstances which lead to Macbeth murdering King Duncan, to killing
people he loved dearly to be the king, to the death of Macbeth by the sword of Macduff.

East Hollywood High School reveals their purpose to show Macbeth as a kind, respected man
who turns into a murderous, crazy human, his wife however, calls him a coward, and tries to
convince him they have done what is right, what is necessary for Macbeth to be King. “These
deeds must not be thought after these ways; so, it will make us mad.” (In the book it is Act 2.2.)
says Lady Macbeth to her husband who is seeing and hearing illusions even though he thinks
they are real. Even though Lady Macbeth is more stable than her husband I believe from the
above quote, she still feels guilty for what she has done, it seems like she is not trying to think
about the crime they have just committed, fearing that if they linger on that thought for too
long they will both go insane.

Shakespeare does a good job in portraying the Act 4.3 by the quote “Of horrid hell can come a
devil more damned in evil to top Macbeth.” Macduff and Malcolm had been discussing about
going to war against Macbeth to make him pay for what he had done. Malcolm questions
Macduff at first when he brings up the idea of going to war. They believed he is guilty, and no
matter what the circumstances, Macbeth should not have murdered the king. By the quote
above you can tell they think nothing worse can be done by anyone. Not even the devil himself
could top what Macbeth has done.

In the same Act, (4.3) the quote, “Let’s make us medicines of our great revenge to cure this
deadly grief.” was made by Malcolm who was at first hesitant in going to fight Macbeth and his
men. But when Ross brought the news to him and Macduff, that Macbeth had ordered for
Macduff’s family to be killed, Malcolm was the first one to make a move to travel to Scotland
and fight the King of Scotland (Macbeth). Enraged Macduff joined him, along with other men
who disagreed with what Macbeth had done.

Machiavelli’s famous line is “the end always justifies the means.” He and other people who
believe that, are saying that as long as you reach your goal, what you wanted to achieve, no
matter what the ethical or moral scruples are, the end justifies the means. Whether it is
murder, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. it is okay to do because you have reached the end. The
goal you have wanted to achieve is achieved and it does not matter what you do to get there,
for in this circumstance it is right.

I disagree very highly with what Machiavelli introduced. (“The end justifies the means.”) It is
wrong to murder under any circumstance in my eyes. Let the law and karma take care of that.
Why put your life at risk to gain something you want? I believe that cheating, lying and stealing
is alright under certain circumstances. Like, if somebody was going to hurt you or your family.
But to lie or cheat on a test, or to steal a candy bar from a gas station because you want one
but you don’t want to pay the money for it? That is wrong, and that end does NOT justify the
means. To me, that’s common sense of knowing right or wrong. Machiavelli has a good point to
a certain extent, but when it comes to everything you do to get to your goal is right and just.
That is where he is wrong. Us humans have such a hard time already doing the right thing, and
even a harder time doing it the right way, the way that will hurt the least amount of people in
this world. We are already so corrupted by evil, greed, revenge and wanting power, that allot of
people will do anything to be a certain someone, or get what they want. Or leave this earth
with their name being known. Look at what just happened in Connecticut! That man, killing
those brave teachers and innocent children. Little kids watching their best friends die, teachers
giving their lives to try and save some children. No, that end does not justify the means. It
justifies that people will do whatever they want to die being known, even if they did something
as disgusting, as shameful as murdering children and the teachers who tried to save their lives,
as long as they go down being considered “famous”. So if people believe that the end justifies
the means, they are wrong 100 percent, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Once
people start seeing that, I believe this world can start turning into a better place.

http://sierramerri14.weebly.com/english-12-with-mrs-mack.html

Macbeth is one of Shakespeare’s most famous tragic heroes, not least because he represents
the Man Who Has It All (seemingly) and yet throws it away because of his ‘vaulting ambition’ to
have Even More: to be king. A brave and effective soldier who is rewarded by the King, Duncan,
for quelling a rebellion against his king, Macbeth decides to kill this same king, while Duncan is
a guest under Macbeth’s own roof, just so Macbeth can seize the crown for himself. What’s
more, he embarks on this course of action largely because he is tempted to do so by the Three
Witches (who prophesy that he will be King) and by a woman closer to home, his ruthlessly
ambitious wife, Lady Macbeth, who taunts his courage and his manhood (as it were) when
Macbeth seems reluctant to go through with the deed.

And here we have the nub of it: what makes Macbeth such a touchstone and archetype for the
tragic hero and the evil villain. Many evil people carry out evil deeds but believe they are acting
for the greater good: they may know, deep down, that individual acts they perform are evil, but
they justify their execution because ‘the ends justify the means’ and they believe they are
acting in the name of Something Greater. Religious fundamentalism is one example, as is much
political terrorism. As Mitchell and Webb brilliantly show in a famous comedy sketch, such
figures are evil but think they are really good, on balance. Then there are the Shakespearean
villains who are ‘determined to prove a villain’, as Richard III puts it in Henry VI Part 3, because
they are ‘rudely stamp’d’ (Richard again) and are shunned by society for some reason or
another. Richard III is a prime example of this. Macbeth, however, is quite different. He begins
the play as the golden boy, with the respect of king and country. He knows that what he is
doing cannot be justified on any grounds. Unlike the source material on which Shakespeare
drew for the play, Macbeth cannot justify the murder of Duncan on the grounds that Duncan is
a weak ruler (he isn’t) or that Duncan has overlooked Macbeth in favour of awarding his own
son, Malcolm, with a noble title (he hasn’t). Quite the opposite: in fact, perversely, Duncan’s
recognition of Macbeth’s service, by naming him Thane of Cawdor, only helps to convince
Macbeth that he should murder Duncan – because in proclaiming him Thane of Cawdor,
Duncan fulfils the first part of the prophecy of the Three Witches. If that part has proved true,
how about the rest of it?

But this is not to say that the character of Macbeth, as Shakespeare presents him, is therefore
psychologically simplistic or straightforward. Macbeth is also a jumble of contradictions: he is a
brave warrior in battle, as we know from the reports of his actions on the battlefield early on in
the play, and his vanquishing of the previous (corrupt) Thane of Cawdor. Yet he is also a man
who recoils at the idea of killing one man in his own house, even though he wishes to do so;
and only finally agrees to do it when his wife calls his manhood into question and taunts him for
a perceived lack of courage.

Every deed Macbeth commits after that first one is justified by Macbeth’s desire to make his
position ‘safely thus’, as he puts it in his soliloquy in III.1. He justifies having Banquo murdered
and attempting to kill Fleance because Banquo, too, has been given a prophecy from the Three
Witches, and seeing Macbeth’s prophecy comes true, he knows his friend will do his best to
ensure Fleance and his descendants end up on the throne. As Macbeth puts it in III.2, ‘Things
bad begun make strong themselves by ill.’

As we mention in our short analysis of the play’s themes, Macbeth as a character displays little
remorse for what he’s done. Instead, his guilt pertains to his fear of his crimes being discovered,
rather than contrition for having murdered innocent people. It’s telling that when Banquo’s
ghost appears to him (and him alone), his reaction is first terror, and then anger that the game
might almost be up.

Source: Interesting Literature. https://interestingliterature.com/2019/08/an-interesting-

character-study-macbeth/

“shalt be what thou art promised”

Act 1 Scene 5 ~ Lady Macbeth receives a letter from Macbeth, which contains Macbeth’s
encounter with the witches and the 3 prophesizes. This is when Lady Macbeth’s ambition is
unleashed. The imperative ‘shalt’ is a command verb and suggests how Macbeth has no choice.
This emphasizes Lady Macbeth’s thirst for power and the desire for how Lady Macbeth wants
more. It also emphasizes that Lady Macbeth will do whatever it takes to have power and this
even means murder. The end justifies the means as Lady Macbeth has no care, no conscience
and no remorse over the actions she takes.

Source: https://litchapter.com/macbeth-by-william-shakespeare-lady-macbeth-quotes