The End Justifies The Means Essay

How Does Ender Justify The End
One question in this novel is do means justify the ends? The main idea of this story was to fight
the bugger war, and stop the buggers from ever taking over. So, was it acceptable for people to
take the steps and control Ender to finally win the bugger war? The answer is that it was not
acceptable to do this. Means do not justify the ends in the novel, "Ender's Game." My reasoning for
this is because Ender was forced to be a dangerous person all out of other people's jealousy. Next,
Ender was manipulated easily, having to face torturous and unfair training, Lastly, in the end of
the book, Ender realizes that buggers aren't as harmful as they seem from Eros. So, in the end the
war had been pointless. Ender's dangerous attitude had come people's decisions to be jealous of
him. Ender was faced with an altercation where Colonel Graff scolded everyone, but Ender. He
did this so Ender would not have any friends. This made the other boys mock Ender. At one point
Ender grabbed a kid's hand after being hit on the head, and threw him, breaking the boy's arm. In
the text it says, "No. No, he had meant to hurt him, and he had pulled with all his strength. He
hadn't meant it to be so public, but the boy was feeling exactly the pain Ender had meant him to
feel." (Cared 33) Ender hated hurting people, but he...show more content...
Ender went out to see what the buggers were like based on what they left behind. He found a sling
for the baby buggers which led to the conclusion that they cared for their young. The buggers left
behind queen pupa, and Ender was able to contact the buggers through her. Queen pupa says, "We
did not mean to murder, and when we understood, we never came again." (Card 321) After the
buggers say this through queen pupa, Ender decides to restart the species, making the war pointless.
There was just no communication between both humans, and buggers to really tell if they were bad or
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

"The ends justify the means". This is a statement that has been uttered ceaselessly since its original
usage by none other than NiccolГІ Machiavelli. Deceitful politicians and advocates of coercion, and
even ruthless war criminals have adeptly utilized the phrase in order to sway public opinion
towards their liking. While there is often a charismatic smile or a grim cry for reciprocation
associated with the phrase (Franklin Delano Roosevelt's speech following the bombing of pearl
harbor being a key example of the latter), what often goes unnoticed is the enigmatic plan inherent
within such a call to action. In fact, the usage of such a phrase itself implies that a morally
reprehensible means will ensue, for there is otherwise no need to reassure...show more content...
While I have already disproved the second half of that notion, by explaining how it is not in fact
for the benefit of society, or anyone save the perpetrators of violence. What many fail to realize,
however, is that the first half of that statement, referencing the necessity of violence in certain
scenarios, is as blatantly false as the second. In order to see the flaws of the argument, one must
merely look towards some of the peaceful advocates for integration, such as Zora Neale Hurston
and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Neither of them once resorted to an act of aggression, yet both
proved to be massively influential in the fight against racial discrimination. Though Hurston clearly
felt the impacts of systemic racism, she did not let the discrimination turn her violent, or even
angry. In fact, in her essay "How it Feels to be Colored Me", Hurston stated that "it
[discrimination] does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can anyone deny
themselves the pleasure of my company? It's beyond me". This quote is the epitome of the
difference between Hurston and X, and shows Hurston's moral superiority. The same superiority
applies, perhaps in an even greater sense, to King. Though arrested, King committed no actions of
aggression, and in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, preached with love, understanding, and
hope, with a message of unity and progress.

Analysis: Does The End Justify The Means
Does the End Justify the Means Introduction In this week's assignment, we have been asked if we
should accept the political doctrine of "the end justifies the means". Next we will discuss if this
acceptance of this doctrine should be unconditional. Then we will look if this doctrine can be
used on a situational basis such as with war vs. peace. Finally we will discuss what possible
consequences might arise from following or not following, this political axiom. Should We Accept
the Political Doctrine "The End Justify the Means" For this week's assignment we are first asked if
we should accept the political doctrine/philosophy of "The End Justify the Means". This subject has
been debated and written about by political theorists such as Machiavelli, Marx and Trotsky. Leon
Trotsky wrote...show more content...
I would like to use a historical event in world history that I believe illustrates possible
consequences that were potentially negative and positive if this doctrine had not been applied to
carry out the event. The event in question was President Harry Truman's decision to employ the
atomic bomb on Japan in August 1945. The use of this new untested weapon killed thousands but
it brought an end to the war and the alternative would have been an invasion of the main island of
Japan that experts had estimated that American forces alone would suffer over 1million casualties
(National Security Archives, 2015) Conclusion In this week's assignment, we were asked if we
should accept the political doctrine of "the end justifies the means". Next we discussed if the
acceptance of this doctrine should be unconditional. Then we looked if this doctrine can be used on
a situational basis such as with war vs. peace. Finally we discussed what possible consequences
might arise from following or not following, this political

Does The Ends Justify The Means?
Does the Ends Justify the Means? To answer questions such as 'Does the Ends Justify the Means?'
is complex. Should we unconditionally accept this doctrine? I believe this cannot be answered
unequivocally yes or no because it will depend on the situation and the role in which this concept
is being considered. This essay will explain the doctrine of the ends justifies the means while
showing examples of both positive and negative application outcomes. This should allow readers
to gain a better understanding of why the doctrine of does the ends justify the means can become
clouded and how the decision being made should have a basis of one's ethics and moral
judgement. The Doctrine: Does the Ends Justify the Means? The question: Does the Ends Justify
the Means? is brought to discussion in the text by Riemer, Simon, & Romance (2014) with
regards to Niccolo Machiavelli 's political strategy of the lion and the fox stating "Where the very
safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or
injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or of shame should be allow to prevail" (p. 20). The
doctrine prescribes to will, therefore, depend actually on which side of the table one sits. If two
opponents believe their life and liberty are being threatened, then both will believe in and enact a
doctrine the ends justifies the means. Countries in which the armies, civil services, and educators are
made up of citizens freely and wantonly serving

Exclusion Enders 'The End Justifies The Means'
In conclusion Enders mistreatment and Animal research are both examples of "The End Justifies
The Means". This has shown that these two harsh things were actually beneficial because they
destroyed one life to save billions. Even though these things aren't morally right they are in some
respects decent. Next time you are about to judge someone's plan of action think about the outcomes.

When the Ends Justify the Means It is commonly believed by both lay people and political
philosophers alike that an authoritative figure is good and just so long as he or she acts in
accordance with various virtues. If the actions of a ruler are tailored toward the common good of the
people rather than himself, then that ruler is worthy of occupying the status of authority. By acting
in accordance with social and ethical norms, the ruler is deemed worthy of respect and authority.
NiccolГІ Machiavelli challenges our moral intuitions about moral authority in his work, the Prince,
by ruthlessly defending the actions made by the state in an effort to preserve power. In particular,
all actions made by the state are done in order to preserve...show more content...
Contrary to popular belief, people do not obey an authority because they respect that authority.
Obeying authority because it is worthy of respect by its good deeds may seem legitimate at first
glance; however, it quickly falls apart upon further reflection. Rather, people obey an authority figure
out of fear of that authority–or more importantly, they fear the consequences that will stem from not
obeying that authority. This statement resonates through all levels of hierarchy within the political
and economic arena even today. For example, restaurant servers follow the demands of a
restaurant manager in fear of losing their job; and restaurant managers will gleefully pay a state
income tax out of fear of the actions that will result from not doing so. The reverberations of
Machiavelli's philosophy are more potent than ever in today's political arena. This is best noted in
elections where various candidates compete to occupy an administrative office. For example, every
four years, the presidential election takes place. Both candidates will stretch truths, massage facts
and make unrealistic promises in an effort to gain followers and thus, seize presidential power. All of
these actions are justified in an attempt to win the presidential campaign–the pinnacle of human
power in the world today. In an effort to achieve power, there is a fine distinction between being
asked to do everything necessary within one's power to achieve this goal, versus

Social Influence Research
Social Influence Research – Do the Ends Justify the Means?
To what extent does the importance of social influence research, justify the methods used in its
investigation?
The debate about ethics in psychology focuses on two areas: protection of participants and
benefiting society. This is a double obligation dilemma as if some psychologists are not allowed to
do certain experiments because of ethical restraints; this can cause problems with validity. In social
psychology, these psychologists have an obligation to use their research skills to advance our
knowledge of human behaviour, for the ultimate aim of human betterment.
Milgram's study into obedience involved participants becoming a...show more content...
The findings of this research seem to justify the ethical guidelines broken as this experiment is a
crucial insight into understanding the extent to which people obey. Also, this experiment would not
have worked if it had followed all rules as the participants would have known the shocks were false
and therefore the experiment would not have been so impactive. The participant would know he/she
was not harming the learner in anyway and therefore be much more willing to follow orders.
Zimbardo's prison experiment was a lab based experiment involving participants being assigned to
the role of guard or prisoner and then spending 5 days (originally 14 days but the experiment was
disbanded after 5) in a 'prison' set up in the basement of a university. Each 'prisoner' was arrested in
their own homes and taken to the prison. In the course of the experiment it was noted that the
prisoners were dehumanised, humiliated and some suffered psychosomatic rashes and even seizures.
The guards became ruthless, guiltless and seemed to enjoy the dominance and power they had over
the prisoners. The aim was to investigate how people conformed

Does the End Justify the Means?
Write a response to the question, "Does the end justify the means?" Give examples of when the
ends justifies the means and when it doesn't. Post your response as a reply to this topic. Read other's
responses and feel free to comment on other's threads and have an open discussion.
The ends justifying the means is extremely difficult to generalize. The answer is much more
complex than a simple yes or no. Quite often, if not most of the time, the end does not justify the
means. But sometimes it can happen. A person's answer could depend on several things; their
situation, how they were raised, what country they are from, etc... If a person was raised with
religious values and taught it is wrong to steal, would they steal if they had a family that was
dying from starvation? Here in lies the dilemma. If the only way for their family to eat and avoid
starvation (ends) involves the act of stealing (means) does this mean it's okay because it's a good
act? What if the person is caught and goes to jail? Now the family starves and the person cannot
help in any means. This would be considered a bad consequence and therein, a bad act. If you held
to the philosophy of Consequentialism you might say, "Yes, the ends do justify the means." But
what if the laws were broken by the same people who enforce them? For instance; a police officer
who gives a drug dealer or thief a free pass if they provide information on a higher value criminal. Is
the law subjective for this person who is

End Justifies The Means
The End Justifies the Means? When does the end result justify the means for concluding it?
Throughout history great losses have been incurred by nations at war. Police officers are often
investigated for the use of excessive force and asked to rationalize his or her use of force during an
arrest. There must be a line, consequently, it is often hard to define and situational factors such as
public safety must be considered.
Local Police and Public Safety When the public safety is at risk, what means can police use to
ensure the safety of the public? There are times that police officers are accused of using excessive
force during an arrest. In fact, Atherley, & Hickman (2014) stated that in recent years "police use
of force has become a popular topic in newspapers and blogs, in classrooms, and around the water
cooler. No other civil servant is imbued with the powers of coercion that we afford sworn law
enforcement officers" (p. 123). There is often bias in this distinction as an officer is going to be
judged by...show more content...
A person's privacy can be invaded by government and local authorities when deemed justified via
phone records. In an effort to thwart terrorist attacks, the government has been collecting phone
data on its citizens since not long after the 9/11 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. In
fact, CBSNEWS (2015) stated "The NSA's collection of American phone metadata has been
deeply controversial. President Barack Obama sought, and Congress passed, a law ending the
collection and instead allowing the NSA to request the records from phone companies as needed in
terrorism investigations" (para. 3). Is it enough to know or trust an agency, collecting this data, that
it will not use it for other purposes. People make personal calls and are under the assumption that it
is private. Some details to an individual's life should remain private so long as it is

Do The End Justify The Means?
Do the end justifies the means?
In this essay I will be answering the question 'do the ends justify the means in the case of
terrorism?' In other words, does the final outcome justify the way the final outcome was reached?
For example, if a man stole bread from a shop in order to feed his family did he do the right
thing?However, today we are going to talk about a very important topic that has been debated for
decades: Terrorism. Also because the benefit come at the cost of a great amount of death and
destruction of the infrastructure. Terrorism is when a person or a certain group of people attack
non–combat targets for religious, political and ideological reasons. I will be arguing in the case of
terrorism, the end does not justify the means....show more content...
The reason I think this because when ANC bombed the infrastructure of South Africa, white people
felt scared of black people and therefore wouldn't hire them for jobs. However on the other side, if
Nelson Mandela's Party (just like Mahatma Gandhi) would have chose the path of nonviolence then
the inconvenience would have never occurred to black people. As because if the goal is noble and
the means through which the goal was achieved was good then the end justifies the
mean.Furthermore, when ISIS attacked Paris many people died, the infrastructure was destroyed
and therefore many people were homeless. This meant that government had to invest billions of
euros to build the buildings

Does The End Justify The Means
Do the ends justify the means? This ethics question is something that we humans have faced and
continue face in today's society. Is it morally reasonable to commit immoral actions if the outcome is
right and just, or if the outcome benefits more than what the actions did wrong? Some argue that if
the outcome is morally right then the actions are morally justified, while others argue that the
morality of the end result does not justify the actions taken to achieve it; who knows which side is
right or if they are both right or maybe should we rethink the phrase "does the end justify the means".
Some argue that immoral actions can be justified by the end result. Some use the utilitarian
principles, claiming that if "those actions are right...show more content...
Does it seem that common people, companies, politicians and governments justify their greedy
immoral actions with righteous causes? Does everybody have an internal moral compass that we
bend and mold to make it point where we want it to point? Do governments start wars and
bloodshed for their desire for land, oil, and resources, and cry that the war is for freedom, for
democracy, for peacekeeping, and for national security? Did the Nazi's justify the acts of war and
genocide with their goal of reestablishing Germany's power? Did the United States provoke a war
with Mexico to gain more land justified it with propaganda? Do we just rationalize our immoral
actions by giving it a noble cause? Is it easier to swallow the wrong by thinking that it is all for a
good

Does the End Justify the Means
Lesley Rawlins The end justifies the means The end justifies the means is an expression that is
often used in society to validate or excuse distasteful and objectionable actions undertaken by its
people. In effect, the phrase is a justification for dispensing with all morality and principle in the
passage towards a successful conclusion. The Greek writer Sophocles wrote in Electra 409 BC
"the end excuses any evil." This was a thought later considered, by the Roman poet Ovid, 'the result
justifies the deed' (c. 10 B.C.). In simpler terms, anything is reasonable if it leads to a significant and
meaningful outcome. The term has been used to explain actions and behaviours ranging from
cheating to pass an exam, stealing to...show more content...
Zimbardo's prison experiment at Stanford University was a study on what the psychological effects
of becoming a prisoner or prison guard was on the individual. Zimbardo wanted to investigate
whether the cruelty reported among guards in American prisons was due to the aggressive
personalities of the guards or the prison environment itself. Twenty–four well adjusted
undergraduates were selected out of over 75 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners. The
guards were permitted to devise most of the rules. A third of the guards exhibited "genuine sadistic
tendencies," and subjected the prisoners to torture. After the initial rebellion most of the prisoners
stopped opposing the guards losing their personal identity and self–belief. Zimbardo's research
demonstrated that people can behave uncharacteristically when placed, in new social or physical
roles and adopt the attitude and behaviour of their perceived roles, in some cases particularly
zealously. The argument that 'anything is reasonable if it leads to a significant and meaningful
outcome' ignores the moral and ethical questioning of the method and the use of this principle to
countenance experimentation is debatable All the studies outlined, involved a degree of deception
and can be criticized for the lack of informed consent. Examples of which include; Milgram's
volunteers believed

Do the Ends Justify the Means?
Robert SassonFinal Paper ENG 2800 12–09–09 Do the Ends Justify the Means? Literature is often a
vehicle for social commentary. Two works of literature that express criticism of practices in the
society in which they were written are Niccolo Machiavelli's Mandragola and the Gospel
According to Saint Matthew. In his satirical comedy, Machiavelli indirectly criticizes the
hypocritical practices of the Catholic Church; however, Jesus in the Gospel According to Saint
Matthew instead directly condemns all evil deeds, few of which are criticized in Mandragola. The
main difference between the two criticisms is that Machiavelli believes if positive ends are the
product of corrupt...show more content...
Jesus explains the material world is merely temporary, so don't treasure it because it won't be here
forever, and instead place emotional attention on the pleasures of the next world. Analyzing
Timoteo's actions in Mandragola we see he has fallen short of understanding the advice of Jesus,
more concerned with the monetary gains for himself, instead of using good Christian judgment.
Unlike Machiavelli, Jesus is encouraging people to stop all bad behavior at the start. We see
Jesus' initiative to prevent evil deeds at its foundation, "You have heard that it was said to those
in ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say
to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult
a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to
hell of fire" (Matthew 5:21–22). Here Jesus makes clear that he wants his followers to be conscious
of the words they use, seeing that being hostile or insulting a person is preemptive to murder and
attaining unfavorable ends. In Mandragola, Timoteo knows that he is acting as an accomplice in
facilitating adultery between the sex–hungry Callimaco and the married Lucrezia. Nonetheless he
chooses to

The Ends Justify the Means
The violence shown in the film Mississippi Burning displays one of the most inhumane images. It
shows the unconditional hatred by the Caucasian Americans toward the African American people
living in Jessup County. Throughout the film, it is suggested by Agent Anderson (a fictional FBI
agent) that those involved in the investigation of three missing children needed to use more guttural
tactics. This is often referred to as a "do whatever it takes" philosophy. In the film however, Agent
Ward is particularly against using such tactics and avidly tries to avoid using them. Agent Anderson
finally wins the argument between them and the more aggressive technique eventually prevails. The
question that looms however is whether or not it is...show more content...
The minority in this way, will always be persecuted, they will always be slaves to the opinion of
the majority. Despite all of this, I do not believe Thoreau would embody a "do whatever it takes"
philosophy. He does advocate civil disobedience, via refusal to follow certain laws or protesting, but
in no way does he believe that one should rise up against the government with force to overcome
injustice. Martin Luther King Jr. was greatly influenced by Henry David Thoreau and it is shown
through their theories and ideas such as imprisonment. Both King and Thoreau spent nights in jail
in order to protests a particular idea or belief, for Thoreau it was slavery, for King it was
segregation. Mississippi Burning, the film that so brutally depicts the actions of the Ku Klux Klan in
the South, actually takes place in the Neshoba County of Mississippi. While the film makes loose
ties to the actual event, many of the specific details were altered in order to better make the film.
The statements that I will include are those that coincide with reality. Three civil–rights activists:
James Cheney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman; were charged with a false speeding
violation and were taken to prison for a total of eight hours. The police department working in
accordance with the Klan released the three advocates and

Morality And The Moral Theories
Meaning of the phrases пїЅthe ends justifies the means' The phrase пїЅthe ends justifies the means'
is a very popular in many fields and is also used in our day to day living. However, it is more used
when talking about morality issues whereby it means that the morality of an action or behavior
depends entirely on the result of that action and not the behavior or action itself. This is phrase
that can be viewed different by proponent of different moral theories. A consequentialist theorist
will agree with this phrase. For example, if one tells a lie to save the other person from grief, the
action of telling the eye is viewed as good. Another example is whereby a person kills the other in
order to save the others. The two actions though they may be viewed as going against the moral
values in the society will be viewed as right because they lead to positive results, meaning that the
ends justifies the means. In overall, what it means is that it does not matter the means used to
achieve certain goals regardless of how bad or violent they may be. On the other hand, a
deontologist would hold the killing as wrong regardless as to whether the results are positive or
negative. This means that there are actions or behaviors that are wrong no matter what. For
example, like in the above examples, regardless of whether lying saves another person grief or
killing a person saves other people lives, those two actions are wrong regardless of their positive
results (Waller, 2005). An informed

Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?
When I first heard about the book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks", I thought it was just a
reading assignment when I was in high school that I had to complete for a grade. As I began reading
I became particularly interested in Henrietta Lacks and the HeLa cells. In "The Immortal Life of
Henrietta Lacks", Rebecca Skloot talks about Henrietta Lacks and how her cells were taken without
her permission, and how her family suffered afterwards. Skloot shows how medicine and science
were seen back in the 1950's compared to now.
Henrietta Lacks was a "mother of five who died of cervical cancer at only thirty–one years of age"
(Gabbay). When she passed away the doctors at John Hopkins asked her husband,...show more
content...
The family feared what they believed were "night doctors who abducted black people for medical
research"(Skloot). Because there was still discrimination then, they feared the worst. In my opinion
the Lacks family was angry with the scientists using HeLa cells from Henrietta without the family's
consent. I think they wanted everyone to know that Henrietta didn't donate her cells, they were taken
without asking and without telling the family what was going to happen to them.
Rebecca talks about whether or not people should have the rights to their own tissues. She points
out two issues, consent and money. In the past there was no informed consent, so the doctors and
researchers felt free to use tissues in whatever way they wished, with little concern for patients'
rights. Nowadays there is a different system, and it's required by the law to ask for a patient's
informed consent.mThe money issue is a question of whether doctors should be required to tell
patients if their cells or tissues are going to be used for commercial research, and what rights those
donors should have. Later on, "scientists sequenced Henrietta Lacks's genome and made it public,
without asking the family's permission" which was just another way in which the family was
violated and looked over (Silver). Apparently Henrietta didn't get her rights, and neither did her
children. Any way we look at it, if the family had received any benefits from the cells, it

Do The Ends Justify The Means
"Do the Ends Justify the Means?" The statement "Do the Ends Justify the Means" is an exceedingly
disputable topic. Many people do not acknowledge this specific matter in their daily lives, but I have
come to the realisation that I must talk in regards to it. The majority acquires an extremely different
perspective on the subject and in addition, the debate usually occurs between these two unlike
classifications: consequentialists and deontologists. Consequentialists would commonly agree with
this declaration, unlike deontologists, because they do not depend on the consequence to decide
whether an act is moral or not. Consequentialism is an ethical perception where one primarily
focuses on the outcome in reference to a particular action. This framework would guide one, aiming
to exclude the negative result, allowing yourself to conclude to a moral assumption. This ethic is
majorly diverse to its opposition: deontology. A certain sub–group within...show more content...
Since they claimed information by completing the malicious task, I support them in it for the
reason that this has directed them to the details of the catastrophe, 9/11. In my opinion, this means
that the act was justified because the CIA had acquired, the identity of Osama Bin Laden, and
progressed in the procedure of 'torture', as most may call it, with only good intentions. I feel that
this is a critical topic to discuss because good moral colossally impacts our lives daily without
ourselves even noticing. Furthermore, the general public secures a varied judgment related to the
statement, "Do the Ends Justify the Means" and from this, you should be able to realise if you are a
consequentialist or a deontologist. This knowledge will let you understand yourself a little bit more,
however, I have found that this position constantly differs depending on the situation. Beverley

Does The End Justify The Means In War?
Does the End Justify the Means in War? Niccolo Machiavelli termed the phrase "Does the End
Justify the Means" in a 16th century political writings titled The Prince. According to The
American Heritage Idioms Dictionary, the term is defined as, "A good outcome excuses any
wrongs committed to attain it" (Ammer, 2017). The reasons for war vary from protecting and
preserving our freedom, to economic reasons. Should the adage be followed unconditionally in
terms of all wars? In the case of the U.S. military, the answer is yes. If our military didn't feel this
way, the U.S. would not be the powerhouse it is today in protecting our freedoms, assisting in
economic stability and keeping our nation safe. Wars of Protecting and Preserving Since the

Does The End Justify The Means?
Many people have heard of the question, "does the end justify the means?", but what does it
mean? This question can be answered on both sides as yes it does justify and no it does not justify
the means. It all depends on the situation in hand. Were the steps to achieve the end good or bad? If
the steps to the end were good then it justifies but if it was bad then it does not justify. So the
answer to the question would be depending on the means to get there and the end results. There had
been many incidents in history where this question can be asked. For example, Adolf Hitler and the
holocaust, huge amounts of deaths. Hitler wanted to create the superior race, Aryans. His party,
The Nazis, also believed that Aryans were the most superior of people on earth. So they started
exterminating the Jews due to his hatred of them. Roughly six millions Jews were killed all to
create the superior race, Aryans. Jews were not the only ones picked to be exterminated but they
were the main ones. There were also gypsies, Jehovah 's Witnesses, poles, homosexuals and slavs.
Some of these people were not even killed, but sent to concentration camps where they would
starve to death. The people there were basically tortured. The Nazis saved money by not using
bullets to execute but by using gas chambers to kill multiple at a time. Not only did Hitler start
killing millions of people, he started World War 2 which caused roughly eighty million casualties.
People in the Nazi party would agree

Ends Justify The Means: Marvel Comics Civil War
When it comes to the question do the ends justify the means it can be argued by the situations that
things happen in. One such instance that we look into to see if the ends justify the means would
be Marvel Comics Civil War. One of the main things to be brought up was the decision between
freedom and security, when it is right to fight for your freedom and when it is okay to give up
little freedoms to have more security. This can be seen with the use of guns in our country. We
live in a country where we are able to buy guns but normally have to do a background check. When
doing this we are willingly giving up our right to privacy temporarily in order to gain something. So
upon hearing this information would you be willing to give up more freedom to gain more security?
...show more content...
They must decide if they want to sign an act that will make them reveal their secret identities to
the government, which has the chance of getting hacked and endangering their loved ones, or
resisting to sign the act and keep their identities secret. Captain America leads a resistance force
that opposes the act that is brought into play as he openly opposes the act thinking that it takes
away freedom from those who are willing to risk their lives to protect others. Meanwhile Iron
Man believes that the heroes need to be regulated and trained if they want to be out using their
powers to save others. This would mean giving up the freedom of having lives outside of their hero
roles as the government would always know who they are and, if they wanted to they could
exterminate them at any point. Captain America is a man who represents america a country that
was found u[on freedom from all types of discrimination. Captain America will fight for the freedom
of others to do as they wish to the point that he would pay the ultimate sacrifice to protect their
freedom, but then you must ask yourself is it really worth

The End Justifies The Means Essay

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Más de Custom Paper Writing Service

Más de Custom Paper Writing Service (20)

Último

Último (20)

The End Justifies The Means Essay