**Human life is inherently valuable and an end in itself – it is unethical to trade this for a ‘greater good’** • The saying ‘the ends justify the means’ means that something is ‘good’ if its result is beneficial, regardless of whether this was achieved through unethical methods. This line of thought is often found in [Consequentialism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#WhaCon), the moral theory that the result of something determines whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. • Many struggle with this as an ethical framework, as in extreme cases, it theoretically excuses [torture](https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/torture-do-the-ends-justify-the-means/) and [police brutality](https://www.police1.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/noble-cause-corruption-do-the-ends-justify-the-means-SCKX3VQGkXYSFhUb/) among other violent acts most would usually condemn. • The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, argued that humans should never be treated as a means, but as [an end in themselves](https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/endinitself.shtml). He perceived human life as inherently valuable, meaning that its value doesn’t depend on anything else. Therefore, it is wrong to harm one human for another, as they are both ends that cancel each other out.

**This phrase could apply to someone doing a perceivably wrong thing to achieve a positive end result.** - Its origins are in [Consequentialist theory] (https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-consequentialism/#:~:text=Consequentialism%20is%20a%20theory%20that,of%20this%20theory%20is%20Utilitarianism.) - which basically says that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. So a consequentialist would argue that the ends do always justify the means. - It might be debated what exactly is meant by 'the ends'. This might mean the actual result - in which case the morality or rightness of an action can only be judged in hindsight. Or it might mean the intended/expected end. One example is lying on a resume to get a job - will this be vindicated only if you actually get a job, or is simply the expectation/intention of getting one enough? - When we judge something purely by its consequence, we risk partaking in [outcome bias] (https://towardsdatascience.com/outcome-bias-versus-moral-philosophy-cb82f42c4437) - this is a psychological term for when we make the error of evaluating a decision based on things we couldn't possibly have known at the time of decision-making. - Could you say that the morality/rightness of an act is never absolute until its consequences have been realised? Or should you judge it purely on intentions and the expected result? - Philosophical theories have tried to solve this problem from many different angles - an example from Utilitarianism is [Jeremy Bentham's 'Hedonic Calculus'] (https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html). This suggests that when we judge an action's rightness or wrongness, we should consider the amount of pleasure and/or pain that is likely to result from it. Bentham gave a series of criteria with which to judge this: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity & extent. You could then measure this against alternative courses of action - and go with the one that produces the most pleasure & the least pain.