Right, Wrong, or None of the Above
Does the End Justify the Means?
Niccolo Machiavelli made his opinion clear when he said, “Let the prince win and
maintain his state [and] the means will always be judged honorable.” In his time, Machiavelli’s
Comment [LT1]: Effective, relevant, and
thought-provoking opening quotation
novel The Prince was a guidebook for future rulers that instructed them to further their ends by
any means necessary. In today’s society, this view is not as widely accepted due to increased
awareness of morality and human rights. Thus, the perennial question is posed: if we commit an
immoral act for a noble end, is that immorality somehow absolved? The justification of the
Comment [LT2]: Introduction provides
background and anchors the BQ historically,
then smoothly connects to current society
means differs in situations from war to medicine to human rights depending on who is being
asked: the one who instigates the means or the one who is affected by the end.
Comment [LT3]: Sophisticated thesis that
successfully qualifies a complex question and
moves beyond the 3-prong thesis
Whether it stems from human selfishness or ignorance, an overwhelming number of
supporters of Machiavelli’s claim are those who benefit from the end that has been brought
about. Historically, it has been the group with the most manpower that comes out on top with
justifications blazing, and the debate over the morality of the Japanese interment during World
War II is no exception. During the Second World War, thousands of Japanese Americans were
placed in internment camps because the United States feared they would turn against the
government and side with Japan. This, of course, was simply paranoia on the part of the
Americans as the majority of Japanese who were relocated were American citizens and willing to
prove their loyalty. However, this fact did not deter the United States from uprooting entire
families solely based on their heritage. Milton Eisenhower, the director of the War Relocation
Authority and brother to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, took it upon himself to defend his
committee’s actions. He claimed that the internment of these citizens was a necessary evil and
Comment [LT4]: Topic sentence makes a
clear and argumentative sub-claim
that “neither the Army nor the War Relocation Authority relished the idea of taking men,
women, and children from their homes” (Japanese Relocation). With this logic, it stands to
reason that if you did not mean to hurt anyone, then you could not be held responsible if
someone was harmed. Obviously, this is easy for Eisenhower to say while sitting behind a desk
Comment [LT5]: Good analysis balanced
with specific and relevant evidence
in Washington because he was not the one forced to leave his home. This blind justification has
run its course throughout history and is even still used today to argue some of society’s most
controversial issues.
With the war on terrorism reaching new heights every year, the morality and necessity of
torture has been a highly debated topic. In a BBC survey conducted in 2007 of 27,000 people in
25 countries worldwide, “More than one out of three people in nine of those countries, including
America, considered a degree of torture acceptable if it saved lives.” While torture in practice
Comment [LT6]: While the transition is
evident, this topic sentence needs to make a
more focused/argumentative claim
Comment [LT7]: Smooth contextualization
and integration of evidence from sources
may be considered inhumane to most, the majority of those people do not see it in practice. They
recognize the practicality of sacrificing one life to save thousands, and therefore they have all the
justification they need. In the wake of recent terrorist attacks around the world, many people are
quick to justify anything that provides even the slightest sense of security. For example, even
with 9/11 thirteen years gone, it is still reported that “nearly half of all Americans thought the
torture of suspected terrorists was sometimes justified” (“Is Torture Ever Justified?”). This
proves that fear leads to the overall dehumanization and generalization of anyone considered an
“enemy.” Many governments take advantage of this anything-to-save-lives rationale and commit
horrible acts against human rights. But who gets to decide whose life is worth more? Is it
justifiable to murder a man for committing murder, or simply hypocrisy at its worst?
However, humans aren’t the only ones struggling to find their place between practicality
and morality; animal testing for medical research takes on both of these ideas of selfishness and
Comment [LT8]: This quotation could be
introduced a bit more fluidly
valuing one life above another to justify tests that would be immediately labeled as inhumane if
practiced on humans. David Pruce, the chief executive of Understanding Animal Research, a
Comment [LT9]: Smooth transition and
focused, argumentative topic sentence
nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the masses on animal testing, advocates for the
side of science. He claims that “animals are essential in scientific research and medicines
development” and, without them, we would not have nearly the same advancements in the
research of cancer, Alzheimer’s, and heart disease. This argument is much the same as the one
given by advocates of torture. Pruce also gives the same justification as Eisenhower as he makes
the case that, “No one wants to use animals in research, and no one uses them unnecessarily or
uncaringly.” However, none of these sentiments make the animals suffer any less as they don’t
get a choice in sacrificing their lives. No matter what is being debated, the views of the winners
are all interconnected by the fragile thread of justification that, while at risk of snapping under
the pressure of empathy, exonerates those who are sitting at the top in that moment.
Comment [LT10]: Excellent example of
imagery, sophisticated diction, and voice
Unsurprisingly, those who do not find justification in the ends are usually the ones
adversely affected by the means. For example, one of the most controversial debates in history,
the necessity of the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is still being challenged today
because the victims are continuing to speak out. Most opponents claim that the bombings were
not justified in that they did not serve a higher cause or save anyone, but in fact took over
200,000 Japanese lives. Robert Freeman, an author and historian, argues for the side of the
Japanese and claims that the United States could not justify their actions because Japan was
practically defenseless and “had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.” This begs
the question of whether or not there was a point in taking all of those lives, if not to end a war
and save others. When looking at the physical and psychological scars the bombs left on the
Japanese, it’s easy to see the immorality of the attack. From those who saw their homes
Comment [LT11]: Another topic sentence
that makes a clear, focused claim
destroyed or buried loved ones in 1945 to those who still suffer the consequences of radiation in
Japan, there really isn’t a debate: the use of atomic bombs were absolutely unnecessary to end
the war. Of course, if you don’t fall into one of the groups of people, it’s very likely that the
answer isn’t so simple. It’s easy to look at situations with a very objective eye when you’re
miles, or years, away; but, when you see the consequences of ones actions played out, the means
get harder to justify.
However, death is not always the only determinate of who is a victim; in the novel The
Great Gatsby, the narrator Nick is the one who questions the necessity of the events that
Comment [LT12]: This section
demonstrates unique voice; while the tone is
more informal, it is still appropriate to the
assignment and shows that the author is
authentically grappling with the nuances of
the question
eventually leads to his good friend Gatsby’s death. Gatsby spends his whole life chasing the
American Dream: the perfect house, the perfect car, and, most importantly, the perfect love. He
found this in Nick’s cousin Daisy, but ended up losing himself in his quest for the perfect life.
When Gatsby’s perpetual pursuit of the lifestyle Daisy embodies leads to his murder, Nick is the
only one who questions whether it was all worth it. Gatsby dies believing that everything he did
was for a good cause, but Nick is not so sure. He describes people like Daisy and her husband
Tom as careless people who “smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their
money or their vast carelessness” (Fitzgerald 179). Nick saw no substance to the world Gatsby
wanted so desperately to belong to; therefore, he could not easily find justification. In the end, he
was the one left with the consequences of the events that took place in New York so he was the
one who judged them harshly. For Nick, the means were not moral, necessary, or justifiable
because he saw no redeemable value in the end.
Although Machiavelli is considered the founder of modern political science, his views
have become obsolete in today’s age of liberal thinking. While his attitude towards justification
might have worked in 15th century Florence, modern debates are too closely interwoven with
Comment [LT13]: The connection to
literature studied in the course is thoughtprovoking, but feels slightly detached from the
rest of the essay
morality to be able to differentiate between right and wrong. And, perhaps, this is the human
race’s fatal flaw. Is it possible that we are doomed to argue in circles, never moving forward,
Comment [LT14]: Strong diction, strength
of argument, and connection back to
Machiavelli/modern society
because we are stuck trying to make the world either black or white? Would it be more beneficial
to agree to disagree, for the sake of progress? Or would that allow immorality to go unchecked
and morality forgotten in the fight for survival?
Comment [LT15]: Thought-provoking
questions in the closing; the writer zooms out
to consider broader implications of the BQ
Works Cited
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York, NY: Scribner, 1996. Print.
Freeman, Robert. "Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?" Common Dreams. 6 Aug.
2006. Web. 14 May 2014.
"Is Torture Ever Justified?." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 22 Sept. 2007. Web. 15
May 2014. <>.
Japanese Relocation. Perf. Milton Eisenhower. U.S. Office of War Information, Domestic
Branch, 1943. .
Pruce, David. "Can the Use of Animals in Medical Research Ever Be Justified?" The
Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 21 June 2011. Web. 15 May 2014.