[News of the Central Committee of the CPSU. 1990. No. 4. S. 191-192.].

The essence of Machiavellianism was not quite rightly minted in the painfully well-known maxim: "the end justifies the means."

This common formula justifies any crimes and, which is sometimes much worse, if we proceed from the logic of Machiavellianism, mistakes. In Soviet Russia, it was transformed into the slogan " they cut the forest - the chips fly". And they drove millions of people to the logging sites. " For a brighter future"- said the organizers of the camps. " We are abolishing all previous notions of morality.” “Everything is moral that corresponds to the interests of the working class». « It is not a pity for the victory of communism ...».

The Nazis called for for a great Germany!". But neither communism nor the Millennium Reich succeeded. It was impossible to reach them by such means.

For good ends worthy means are needed.

Requirement " "- is still the main rhetorical pearl in the ideological arsenal of any Soviet propagandist.

I remember that during the discussion of the cutting economic program, one well-known Russian-speaking Israeli publicist argued that the main task was to carry out an anti-socialist (!) revolution in Israel, and for this all means were good. It does not matter that Israel will be left without libraries, without a welfare system and social security, without pants ... The main thing is that it becomes more capitalist. But a state without pants is unlikely to meet high market standards. Will soon turn into a third world country.

Here is Chubais's rhetoric about ends and means during privatization:


But what does the formula "The end justifies the means" have to do with the legacy of Machiavelli, even with the "Prince" usually deliberately taken out of the context of his work?

Everyone who has read this political manifesto, and not just those who know its content from retellings interpreting it in different directions, knows that each chapter of The Sovereign begins with a problem statement, then there are endless, very often interesting, often boring heaps of historical tales cited as examples , and finally the conclusions follow. The logic leading to Machiavelli's conclusions is convincingly simple. Sometimes simple to the point of obscenity.

Speaking on this subject, he declares that if we want to achieve such and such a goal, we must use suitable means, because it is useless to pursue the chosen goal with the help of methods that are obviously doomed to failure. On the other hand, if we use certain means, then we will not achieve anything other than such and such an end. If you want to come to the temple - go along the road leading to the temple, and walking along the tavern street towards the cheerful house - you will find yourself in a completely different, no less interesting place.

Because both goals and means for Machiavelli are in strict dependence on each other.

After all, all people, regardless of whether they are moral or immoral, strive to achieve their goals. Let everyone choose his own path: some act prudently, others take it impudently; some are cunning, others resort to violence; some are patient, others are resolute - all are able to succeed despite the fact that the course of action is different.

In a letter to his friend Giovanni Soderini, written in September 1506, for the first time discussing the issue of individual choice of means oriented to obtaining the desired result, Machiavelli writes: “Hannibal and Scipio, both outstanding military leaders, won countless victories: one of them, being in Italy , maintained unity in the troops with cruelty, deceit and impiety, while he attracted the peoples to himself so much that they rebelled against the Romans. Another achieved the same from the people by constancy, mercy and piety. Lorenzo Medici disarmed the people to keep Florence; Messer Giovanni Bentivoglio armed him for the sake of Bologna; Vitelli at Castello and the Duke of Urbino destroyed fortresses in their domains to keep them, while Count Francesca at Milan and many others built fortresses for security. Emperor Titus on the day when he was not a benefactor to someone, considered his power under threat, another would see a threat on the day when he would have done something nice for someone.

An effective course of action corresponds to the specific circumstances of the moment. What is good at one time may be bad at another. To the bruised place, you need to apply either a cold compress or a warm one, depending on how much time has passed since the injury. A style that suits one leader may be disastrous for another. In some situations, cruelty is needed, and in others, condescension. One woman is seduced by high poetry, and the other by going to a disco. One electorate is turned on by Obama's black skin, the other by Palin's Eskimo brutality.

If your goal is to introduce a republic, then you must act in one way, and if a monarchy, then differently. Barak, who wanted to reach a final agreement as soon as possible, was obliged to use the most severe measures at the beginning of the intifada in order to destroy it in the bud. The failure to implement tough measures in the autumn of 2000 led to an explosion of violence.

And although the notorious expression “the end justifies the means” is not found in numerous books of Machiavelli, it is, in principle, quite applicable to his approach. Since this expression itself (which is considered the essence of "Machiavellianism" and almost a product of the devilish mind) does not actually contain anything seditious. This is a simple tautology. In order to realize it, one must ask the obvious question: “What is the means?”. A tool is something that has no independent value. It exists not for itself, but for another - to achieve a certain goal. Only in it, in the end, does the means have its definition, its truth and value. In the event that it really is a means.

Good intentions

However, usually saying the maxim “the end justifies the means” means completely different things. Like, for the sake of a good goal, it is permissible, even obligatory, to use any, even criminal, means, to violate any norms, what is sacred to you, therefore, to make crime a means to achieve a good goal. Hence the ancient wisdom about "goodintentions" with which "the road to hell is paved."

For if for the realization of these "good intentions" you need hellish means, means that defame the goal, then you cannot go anywhere else.

Here it should be said that Machiavelli personally never advocated such an ethical maxim and even spoke out against it. In the thinker's texts there is no expression "the end justifies the means", but there is something else: “I never once wanted to cover up an unseemly act with a plausible pretext or denigrate a laudable deed because it was undertaken for an opposing purpose.”

And if in some cases Machiavelli showed how certain people achieved goals (both good and evil) with the help of crimes, then this does not reflect the personal position of the author.Machiavelli nowhere praises immorality for the sake of immorality, he is not a nihilist; he does not deny universal human values ​​and does not try to destroy them.

The maxim “the end justifies the means” generally has not an ethical, but a methodological meaning. Machiavelli's entire mental work is aimed at establishing which actions lead to which goals, and vice versa: which goals require which means and actions. It is clear that the formula: “for the sake of a good goal, any means are permissible” contradicts the above-mentioned essence of the teachings of Machiavelli, his initial installation and purposefulness.

It contradicts, if only because it generally undermines the possibility of theoretical reasoning. This formula simply eliminates the need to establish relationships between these or those means and ends.

Why is it so? Yes, because any action has a positive side, which can always be passed off as a goal. Murder is not committed for the sake of murder, but for the sake of justice, for example.

Theft is committed not for the sake of theft, but for the sake of a prosperous life, which in itself is a good goal. We can say that people are always driven only by good goals. And if so, then the formula “any means are suitable for a good end” is an ethical maxim that simply allows you to do anything.
There are thinkers who undertake to do this, but Machiavelli is not one of them.

Since the author of The Sovereign generally undertakes to distinguish one means from another, he is therefore no longer a supporter of the maxim that one can do whatever one likes. Since it is necessary for him to distinguish between means, he distinguishes them according to their degree of suitability for ends. Not good and evil, not true and untrue, but useful and useless, leading to the goal or moving away from it - this is the principle on which distinctions are made.M.A. Yusim, who published the book “Ethics of Machiavelli” in 1990, precisely indicates that the merit of the great Florentine “consisted not in the liberation of “science” from morality, but in its liberation from abstract moralization”, which is neither science nor morality has nothing to do with it.

Machiavelli did not invent political assassination, betrayal and deceit. But before him, they were committed de facto, and they tried not to notice or consider them an exception to the rule. Machiavelli did away with hypocrisy. He did not invent or invent anything, and he himself constantly pointed out that he was not proposing a new original political strategy, but rather only formulating, revealing the methods that many successful statesmen have successfully used since time immemorial.In fact, Machiavelli constantly illustrates the points of his books, citing numerous impressive examples from ancient history or from contemporary Italian events. But his hero, the great sinner Caesar Borgia, did not learn from Machiavelli how to perform his many crimes. Quite the contrary, the Florentine philosopher studied under him.

According to his teaching, the use of poison can be good if it is impossible to resolve a peaceful matter, and only in this way can one get rid of a political enemy. But political poisoning is good only if it succeeds, is done subtly enough, no one will understand that it was poisoning and not a heart attack, and even more so if no one recognizes the customers and performers. And the unsuccessful poisoning of Khaled Mashaal, to whom in Jordanian territory, on the orders of the well-read "Hamlet", Benjamin Netanyahu, our valiant scouts awkwardly tried to pour poison into his ear in broad daylight, after which they did not find anything better than to run towards the Israeli embassy ... This use of poison cannot be called good. Israel paid the highest price for Bibi's whim. Instead of the unkilled Mashaal, the head of Hamas, Sheikh Yassin, was released from prison.

If we adopt the point of viewMachiavelli, then we will no longer have to, depending on rightism or leftism, scold Shamir for not wanting any peace negotiations, holding on to the “integrity of Eretz Israel” with his teeth; Rabin for wanting to make genuine peace with Arafat; Peres for his utopian "New Middle East"; Netanyahu for his adherence to the dogmas of the wild, sorry, free market; Baraka for his general's desire to achieve peace with a single throw.

No, all criticism of our heroes should not focus on goals. We will scold Shamir for the fact that the former head of Lehi ended his political career in Madrid. We will blame the peacekeepers not for trying to bring the warring parties to a messianic "New Middle East", but for failing to do so. So, they chose the wrong roads and the wrong fellow travelers. This means that the means did not correspond to the chosen goals.

For the first time I read all the essays Machiavelli after the August coup of 1991. Then it occurred to me that in fairness the GKCHPists should be judged not for the fact that they intended to take power into their own hands, but for the fact that, heading key departments, they could not do it. For that, they are worthy of all condemnation, because, having set before themselves a “good” (for them, certainly good) goal - the salvation of their state, they took the path that could lead, and therefore led it to instant collapse.

Here, developing Machiavelli, it should also be noted that political wisdom, in contrast to cunning, resourcefulness and intelligence, affects the choice of real goals.The cemeteries of history are littered with the corpses of "realists" of immoral means who set themselves unrealistic goals. Napoleon and Hitler realistically found the means to carry out their conquest plans.

But what good is the realism of the means if the end is unreal and insane? And no political technology will help ...

"The end justifies the means" is not Machiavelli's. Some write that the Jesuit Escobar was its author, others - that, on the contrary, the Protestants who branded the Jesuits with it. But, apparently, the Greek playwright Sophocles was the first to say it in the play “Electra” in 409 BC.

Composition in the direction "Aims and means".

The statement given to me is quite contradictory and ambiguous, like any other question that involves long discussions. Does the end always justify the means? And does it justify at all? Should one correspond to the other, and what should be the end so that all means are good for it?

On the one hand, the whole life of a person is a movement with some purpose, in most cases it is taken as the “meaning of life”. home, family, good job, a car, an apartment, a garden with gooseberries, your own small business, world peace - all this can become the meaning of everyone's existence. Does it make sense to think about the means to achieve your goal? Of course, yes, because in our life any obsessive thought can break into reality and the very fact that a person is constantly changing, growing up and improving. And if today, for example, it seems to me that for the sake of life in the capital it’s worth going over heads, then tomorrow, quite possibly, I will kiss the hands of my grandmother in a small village on the very outskirts of our country, strive for something completely different and condemn yourself for what you have done in the past. For example, the protagonist novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" for a long time considered it his goal to prove to himself and others that with the help of evil deeds one can come to good. In other words, he believed that in achieving a noble goal, criminal means are acceptable. According to Raskolnikov's theory, there were two types of people: worthy and unworthy of life, and the hero believed that by killing the latter, you can create an ideal, kind world. However, having committed the murder of an old woman, the hero realized that his idea was inhumane, and he himself, having taken this step, did not become better than those scoundrels who surrounded him. These included, for example, Svidrigailov, a vile and low personality who did not disdain by any means in order to achieve his dirty goals. Raskolnikov's repentance and Svidrigailov's suicide proved once again that the end does not always justify the means.

Another example is the hero of the novel N.V. Gogol "Dead Souls". Chichikov's goal was high social status and self-enrichment. The hero decided to take a rather desperate step: having redeemed many “dead souls” from various landowners, he would without much difficulty simultaneously acquire the status of a large landowner, and, having received a large loan for his peasants, the hero would also have the opportunity to possess big business. To this end, Chichikov began his difficult path and resorted to a variety of means, but the very nature of the hero did not allow him to sink too low and behave, for example, in the same way as those landowners to whom he addressed with his deal. Of course, the final ending of the novel remained in the second volume, however, it seems to me that the fact that Chichikov, having managed to find an approach to each landowner, nevertheless achieved his goal and collected the required number of dead souls, without doing anything like that, for that he himself might be ashamed. Thus, Chichikov's goal justified the means applied to it.

In conclusion, I would like to note once again that there is no and cannot be a specific answer to the question posed in the test. The end can justify the means only if the honor and dignity of a person do not suffer.

End justifies the means. Target justifies the means - this phrase has long become winged. It is believed that the famous Italian Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) is the author of the aphorism “The end justifies the means.” This misjudgment. Actually
at different authors there are similar statements. This maxim became widely known and acquired a negative connotation, primarily because it was used as its motto by the Jesuit order. With these words, the Jesuits Eekobar and Herman Buzenbaum (1600-1668) explained the morality of their order. They, in turn, borrowed this idea from the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Many thinkers disputed this statement. So the French scientist Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), exposing the resourcefulness of the Jesuits in proving their false ideas, wrote that they correct the depravity of the means by the purity of the end.
And yet this popular expression can be interpreted in different ways. Folk wisdom teaches us expediency. So, if you lost a penny (or several small coins) in the dark, then you don’t need to burn a candle in search of it, which costs much more. But not everything is so simple. The Japanese have such a parable.
“Once upon a time, One official was crossing a river in the dark. His servant accidentally dropped ten sen (a small coin equal to 1/100 of the price). The coins fell into the water. By order of the official, they immediately hired people, lit torches and began to look for money. An outside observer who happened to be a witness to all this said:
- Regretting the drowned hay, the official bought torches, hired people. Much more than ten sen will be spent on this search. What's the point?
Hearing this remark, the official replied:
Yes, some people think so. Many are greedy in the name of economy. But the money spent does not disappear: they continue to walk around the world. Another thing is the ten sen that drowned in the river: if we do not pick them up now, they will be forever lost to the world.” Target. It is different for everyone, as well as the meaning of life, everyone finds (or only seeks) his own. A similar image, but with a drachma (Greek small silver coin, a quarter of a piece of silver) is used in the Gospel of Luke in one of the parables of Jesus Christ. “... what woman, having ten drachmas, if she loses one drachma, does not light candles and sweep the room and search carefully until she finds it, and when she finds it, she will call her friends and neighbors and say: rejoice with me: I found the lost drachma. Thus, I tell you, there is joy among the angels of God even over one sinner who repents.” Jesus Christ told this parable of the lost drachma immediately after the parable of the lost sheep. Of course, we are not talking about days and animals. In figurative language, Christ answers his accusers, the Pharisees, who did not communicate with those who, in their opinion, were sinners. Christ conveys to his listeners the truth about God's love and mercy for all people - and sinners too. Parables about how God himself is looking for a sinner, to save him, and what joy is there in heaven over those who repent.
So do the means justify goal? We can also recall one of the most significant and famous Russian writers and thinkers in the world, F.M. ”:“... Without it, they say, a person could not have stayed on earth, because he would not have known good and evil. Why know this damn good and evil when it costs so much? Yes, the whole world of knowledge is not worth then these tears of a child to the “god” ... ”There is something to think about. Everyone decides for himself. Just remember that nothing is new on earth. Think for yourself, unless, of course, there is a desire to be decided for you.

In the course of any controversy / discussion, there will certainly be some expert moralist who wants to show himself, to show off his wit by throwing all sorts of “eternal questions”, quotes, winged, as well as wingless expressions onto the fan. And it should be noted that the thesis "the end justifies the means" among these connoisseurs-demagogues is one of the most beloved. This leads to the fact that the discussion of a specific topic is littered with a husk of pseudo-wisdom, which adds nothing in essence, but only provokes unnecessary, empty, fruitless disputes.

Therefore, in order not to be driven into a corner with noodles on your ears, it is very useful for any debater, rhetoric, and even a laborer of mental labor to deal with all the tricky questions in advance, and to give the hypocrites / demagogue an immediate and concrete blow.

“The end justifies the means” is an extremely simplified, formalized, psycho-emotional formula that defines the relationship between the end, means and morality. Moreover, the object of evaluation is both the goal and the means.

Sucking on this triangle from all sides and angles, the contenders for the "conscience of the people" proceed from several unpretentious theses/postulates.
Good cannot be achieved through evil.
A good goal can only be achieved by good methods.
The goal must be moral.
Good ends are not achieved by bad means.
Only morality determines whether the end justifies the means or not.
Immoral ways of achieving goals cannot be justified.
Etc.
However, upon closer examination, these arguments turn out to be extremely simplified and ambiguous, and therefore unconvincing and hypocritical.

Because there is no abstract goal, no abstract means, no abstract justice, no abstract morality, no abstract “good”. The end, means and morality are always concrete. Therefore, discussing this topic in isolation from the real context is as ridiculous as the disputes of medieval scholastics about how many devils can fit on the point of a needle.

Let's say a surgeon cuts a person, removing a tumor from his body. What is he doing? Good or evil? The answer is obvious to us. It is with the help of evil that the doctor does good. However, in the recent past, all kinds of anatomical theaters were considered a desecration of God's creation and other "immoral blasphemy."
Conversely, with the help of good you can create evil. It is on this occasion that it is said: “The path to hell is paved with good intentions” and “We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.” There are many such examples.

However, there are two more characteristics, without taking into account which the problem remains limited and speculative. They are conditions (external environment) and our emotional involvement in the situation. And emotions, unlike morality, are determined by the subconscious, over which our mind / rationality has no power. And even more so, this is true of affects that are not controllable by definition. (Although, of course, there are exceptions to everything. For example, shame is an emotion associated with a person’s social behavior and morality, and not with his subconscious)
The characteristics of individual morality are limited by our emotions, fortitude and available resources. It is these factors that determine what the decision will be.

You will always have the morality that your powers will allow you to. (F. Nietzsche)

Let our strength overcome fear, resist temptation, endure pain, reconcile with loss, make sacrifices, etc. There will be one solution. If they don't, it will be different. To condemn a person after this in cowardice, immorality and other sins does not make much sense. No one can jump above their own head. And in the case when the goal is survival, it is unlikely that anyone will think for a long time about the means, morality, morality and other etiquette. And even more so, about how his actions will be regarded by moralists.

Therefore, the problem under discussion can be correctly stated (and solved) only in the form of an equation of five parameters: emotions, goal, conditions, means, morality. And morality is not accidentally assigned to the end of the list, because, "her word is the last."

However, there is one more catch! The goal is not the result! Purpose is intention, intention. And they are not judged by intentions, they are judged by deeds. And while there are no deeds, the goal cannot be sewn to the cause. What is Manilov from Dead Souls famous for? Ideas and goals - the sea, but no action. So, the above statement of the problem is legally illiterate. In any case, at the idea stage.

The outcome justifies the action. (Ovid)

Oh how! Not a goal, but a result! The end justifies the means. Themistocles surrendered Athens to Xerxes, Kutuzov surrendered Moscow to Napoleon. And until the outcome of those wars came, the surrender of the capital, no matter how it was motivated, was impossible to justify.

The problem of "end-means" is tightly linked to another "eternal problem" - "winners are not judged." Having started to discuss it, we return again to morality and go in cycles until we collapse from fatigue.

For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that the chatter of moralizers about morality and generosity lasts only until the moment when they themselves become involved in a specific negative situation. As soon as misfortunes touch them personally, they shout “crucify” the loudest and resort to the most cruel and immoral methods of retribution. Where does their “political correctness” and “tolerance” go! (sic!) It's easy to have high morals when out of the context of reality. The people on this occasion have an intelligible catchphrase: "tryndet - not tossing bags."

Some understand the statement under consideration only in terms of “the goal must justify the means spent on it” (“the game is not worth the candle”, “the game is not worth the candle”, etc.) Such an accounting interpretation has nothing to do with morality.

Total!

1. Attempts to solve problems by abstract reasoning are empty chores. Analysis of the goal-means relationship makes sense only in the context of a particular situation. Everything is good, everything is evil, the difference is in the details. In which, as you know, the devil hides. Therefore, only after a comprehensive consideration of all the details by a special body called the “supreme court”, it is possible to give an assessment: punishment, acquittal, or only public condemnation.

2. Don't be embarrassed by smart people who are trying to give a negative assessment of your actions, limit your funds, drive you into a space of incomprehensible alternatives, and also introduce pseudo-problems and stereotypes into your bright head. Don't let moralistic demagogues and other trolls confuse you. Give them a thrashing in the most resolute and tough form.

3. Whether the end justifies the means is subject to careful calculation in each particular case and depends entirely on the design of the balance for weighing. See what your personal scales show and do what your conscience tells you.

Notes.

"Is it possible to achieve noble goals by any, including dishonest means"? This issue can be debated and debated for a long time. One part of people is inclined to the opinion that it is possible, and the other says that it is impossible. In order to understand this, you must first understand: “What do we mean by the word honest and dishonest, bad and good”? Everyone understands these words in a completely different way. To understand this, you can turn to the animal world. Every day predators kill other animals to feed their young. They do it out of instinct, for them the goal is to feed their offspring, not to let them die.

There are two points of view on this question. On the one hand, the means to achieve noble goals must also be noble, otherwise the goal itself will not be considered noble. On the other hand, the means can be dishonest if the end itself requires it. Since we were given to write an essay on this topic, I still cannot decide for myself. I thought for a long time and finally came to the conclusion: "Noble goals can be achieved by dishonest means, only if these means do not cause serious harm to other people." I'm going to give an example. Suppose a child needs an expensive operation, but the parents do not have money for this operation. And then the father commits a crime: he decides to break into the house of a rich man and steal the amount he needs from him, without taking anything extra. I justify this man. After all, if he did not do this, then his child could die. Yes, he stole the money, but because of this amount, the other person will not become poorer. Bottom line: noble goals can be achieved by any, including dishonest means, only under one condition - if this does not cause serious harm to others.

« Can whether achieve noble goals any , in volume including and dishonest means »?

Block Width px

Copy this code and paste it on your website

Slides captions:

Preparation for the final essay-2017. "Purpose and Means"

FIPI comment

• The concepts of this direction are interconnected and allow us to think about the life aspirations of a person, the importance of meaningful goal setting, the ability to correctly correlate the goal and the means to achieve it, as well as the ethical assessment of human actions. Many literary works feature characters who deliberately or mistakenly chose unsuitable means to implement their plans. And it often turns out that a good goal serves only as a cover for true (lower) plans. Such characters are opposed to heroes for whom the means to achieve a lofty goal are inseparable from the requirements of morality.

Meaning of concepts

Target is what we want. It can be of any scale. aim we name the desire that we want to realize in the near future.

Facilities These are the methods by which we will achieve the goal.

Consider the concepts of "goal" and "means" from different angles

• . Purpose as a fundamental part of human life. About the role and importance of having a goal in a person’s life, about its absence, about a person’s striving for heights, about achievements and about a goal as an engine of progress, about self-realization, great discoveries that are possible only thanks to a goal, about obstacles on the way to a goal, about a goal as a continuous process, as well as about what and who helps a person on the way to his goals

• . Does the end justify the means? Here one can speculate about whether great goals achieved by dishonest means can be justified, about the importance of human life, about the methods of achieving the goal, and about the ethical evaluation of methods and means to achieve the goal. The goal is an imaginary peak, individual for each person, to which he aspires, and tries to fulfill for this all the necessary conditions, requirements, duties that depend on him.

Synonyms

• "Target": intention, end, task, task, plan, plan, project, calculation, target

• "Means": way, possibility, method; tool, device, weapon; panacea, tool, system, path, asset, resource, condition, method, recipe, drug

Themes

• 1. All means are good to achieve the goal.
• 2. Are all means good for achieving a noble goal?
• 3. How do you understand the saying of O. de Balzac: “In order to reach the goal, one must first of all go”?
• 4. What does the lack of purpose in life lead to?
• 5. How does society influence the formation of goals?

• 6. How does the goal set by a person in front of him affect his fate?
• 7. What is more important for a person - spiritual or material goals?
• 8. Do you agree with V. Hugo's statement: “Our life is a journey, an idea is a guide. There is no guide and everything has stopped. The goal is lost, and the strength is as if it had not happened”?

Work on the composition of the essay

• 1. Introduction. Reference to an authoritative opinion on an issue close to the problem under discussion (for example, the words of Academician D.S. Likhachev: « Only a vital goal allows a person to live his life with dignity and get real joy.».

• 2. Main part. The answer to the question posed in the topic of the essay:
• 1) thesis 1+ illustration (story by I.A. Bunin “The Gentleman from San Francisco”);
• 2) thesis 2+ illustration (the goals of Pierre Bezukhov and Andrei Bolkonsky, heroes of L.N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace"

• 3. Conclusion. Appeal, appeal to the reader//reasoning about the relevance of the topic.

LIFE GOALS OF LITERARY HEROES

"Woe from Wit" A. Griboyedov

• The means chosen by the "famus society" are low. A vivid example of this is A. Molchalin, a man who is ready to do anything for the sake of promotion, money, well-being. He tries to please everyone, to please, to flatter, to be hypocritical. The hero learned well the lessons of his father, who taught his son:
• First, to please all people without exception: The owner, where he happens to live,
• The boss with whom I will serve,
• To his servant who cleans dresses;
• Doorman, janitor to avoid evil,
• The janitor's dog, so that it was affectionate.
• If to achieve the goal you need to play the role of a man in love, he uses this means too, deftly deceiving Sophia in the sincerity of his feelings, dreaming of marrying her, intermarrying with the influential Famusov. Well, most likely some means will nevertheless lead him to the desired goal. Chatsky is sure of this, speaking of the hero: “But by the way, he will reach the known levels, because now they love the dumb ...”

• Chatsky's goal is to live life with dignity. He wants to serve the Fatherland honestly, without flattery and servility ( “... I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve ...”), dreams of sincere love, strives to be honest, have his own position, principles and not change them, no matter how they contradict society. Yes, his end and means are noble, but what anger they cause in society! “Woe from Wit” is experienced by Chatsky, misunderstood by others, recognized by them as crazy. But this is exactly how, according to the author, one should live - honestly, with dignity.

• To choose a worthy goal in life, to use appropriate means to achieve it, not to make mistakes, not to follow the path of imaginary values ​​- it is so important to become a person, to be honest with yourself and people. It is to this conclusion that readers of the play by A.S. Griboyedov come.

Writing an essay together (workshop)

Topic: "Are all means good for achieving a noble goal?"

Writing an introduction

Purpose and means… These concepts often go together. The goal is ... On the way to the goal, each person chooses his own means. For one, this is ... For another ... Still others choose ...

(next to the thesis)

Are all means good for achieving a noble goal?

Introduction

• Purpose and means - these concepts always go together. We dream about something and plan how to achieve it, by what means to achieve the goal. And we often hear: “The end justifies the means,” and some add: “If it is noble.” I don't agree with this. Even for the sake of a noble goal, one cannot go to betrayal, treason, crime. After all, noble means pure, moral. It is impossible to go to nobility in an immoral way. Russian literature has repeatedly warned the reader about the danger of such a path.

Argument

• Let us turn to the work of F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". The hero Rodion Raskolnikov is a poor student, a man of exceptional intelligence and will. Understanding the injustice of the social structure, he creates a theory according to which he divides all people into "trembling creatures" and those who "have the right." Of course, he wants to include himself in the second category. But how to test this theory? It is necessary to kill the useless old pawnbroker, to test yourself, - the hero decides. They will be tormented by pangs of conscience - that means you are an ordinary person, you can "step over" - that means "you have the right." But not only the desire to test the correctness of the theory drives Raskolnikov, but also a very noble goal - to help the "humiliated and offended." It is no coincidence that already at the beginning of the novel, Dostoevsky leads us through the streets of St. Petersburg, where the powers that be are doing lawlessness. We meet people like Marmeladov. We are witnessing the beggarly life that members of his family lead, and the eldest daughter Sonya is forced to go “on a yellow ticket”, otherwise her brothers and sisters will die of hunger. Yes, and Raskolnikov's sister is also forced to sacrifice herself in order to help her brother finish university.

• Seeing this, wanting to help those who drag out a miserable existence, Raskolnikov commits murder. But even for a noble goal, not all means are good! Like a true humanist writer, Dostoevsky debunks the theory of the hero. Having committed a crime, Raskolnikov literally goes crazy: he is seized with a fever, he moves away from people, even those closest to him, internally approaches people who are hated by him (such as, for example, Svidrigailov). Unable to bear the pangs of conscience, the hero comes with a confession. But only in hard labor did he finally realize the perniciousness of his theory. The writer led him to the Bible, the main commandment of which is: "Thou shalt not kill." Raskolnikov realized the danger of his theory: one cannot reach a lofty goal with low means.

Conclusion

• READ THE INTRODUCTION PAYING ATTENTION TO THE THESIS:
• Purpose and means - these concepts always go together. We dream of something and plan how we can achieve it by what means to achieve the goal. And we often hear: “The end justifies the means,” and some add: “If it is noble.” I don't agree with this. Even for the sake of a noble goal, one cannot go to betrayal, treason, crime. After all, noble means pure, moral. It is impossible to go to nobility in an immoral way. Russian literature has repeatedly warned the reader about the danger of such a path.

ONCE AGAIN, WE FOCUS ON THE THESIS:

Thus, the heroes of Russian literature make us think about what means can be used to reach the goal. There is only one answer: only the path of morality will lead you to a noble goal. We must not forget about it.

"Dead Souls" N.V. Gogol

• "End justifies the means". These words are so suitable for the hero of the poem by N.V. Gogol Chichikov! The goal was clearly set by the hero (it was already indicated by his father in childhood: “ take care of everything and save a penny: this thing is more reliable than anything in the world ... "- wealth, nobility, position in society. Step by step the hero goes to his goal. Already in his school years, he uses certain means to achieve it, is engaged in hoarding: he sells treats to his comrades, a bullfinch, which he molded from wax, carefully sews 5 kopecks into bags. And later, any machinations, if they led to money or promotion, were good for the hero. Let us recall how cleverly he deceived the boss by promising to marry his daughter. But after receiving the next rank, I forgot about it ( "... blew it, blew it, damn son!") It seemed that it could be worse than the sale of "dead souls", and Chichikov sells them without disdaining anything, because this can bring him a significant income. Even secular society, corrupted by the pursuit of money, does not understand the hero, and such a method of gain is alien to him. Chichikov can find an approach to anyone, literally charm the whole society with himself. Entering into the confidence of the landlords, he makes illegal transactions. And everything would be fine if it were not for Korobochka, who decided in the city to find out if she had sold the dead souls cheaply, if it were not for Nozdryov with his frankness, who publicly asked how things were going with the purchase of these souls. This time the scam failed. But the hero still has so many opportunities ahead, and who knows, maybe he will succeed in another dubious enterprise. Of course, the author hoped that a person could change. It is no coincidence that he wrote the 2nd volume, in which he showed goodies. But N. Gogol himself realized that the characters turned out to be too unrealistic, that it is very difficult to get rid of their vices in people, so he burned this volume.
• The desire to be rich is always characteristic of people. This goal is well understood. But does a person always use worthy means? Does he descend to baseness, lawlessness, injustice? Everyone should think about this when determining the means to achieve their goals in order to be a respected and worthy person in society.

"War and Peace" L.N. Tolstoy

• The character of a person is formed throughout life. Sometimes one goals and values ​​are replaced by others. Much depends on the environment, on changes both in the life of the person himself and in the life of the whole country, the people. The hero of Leo Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" Andrei Bolkonsky is constantly in search of his place in life. The author shows how his goals changed, the means he used to achieve them.
• At the beginning of the novel, the hero dreams of glory, goes to war with Napoleon to find his "Toulon", that is, the starting point that will mark the beginning of his fame ( “I want fame, I want to be known to people, I want to be loved by them”). However, the war showed the insignificance of his dreams. Seeing the huge sky, the clouds floating across it, he realized that he had to live according to the laws of nature, that all his goals were so low, worthless. The meeting with Natasha in Otradnoye, overheard her words about the beauty of the night, in which there is so much desire to live to the fullest - all this influenced Andrey. He wanted to be useful to people, to benefit them ( “... it is necessary that everyone knows me, so that my life goes not for me alone ... so that it is reflected on everyone and that they all live with me together). He also considers the means for this, being a member of the legislative commission of A. Speransky. At the end of the novel, this is a completely different person who has realized that a person is happy, living a single life with the people, the Fatherland, contributing to great things. And he also realized that one must be able to forgive, because it was precisely the fact that he had once failed to understand and forgive Natasha that deprived him of the love of such a woman! Before his death, Andrei realized this , "... he discovered that patient love for people that his sister taught!"
• The author makes his readers think about many things and, above all, about how to live on this earth, how to be a person. L. Tolstoy's favorite characters seem to suggest answers to these questions.

Conclusion.

• The goal in life, the means to achieve it. How to choose them? It is not simple. It is human nature to make mistakes when choosing life guidelines. But the main thing is whether or not he can find the right path, set a worthy goal for himself, using fair means to achieve it. In deeds, deeds, a person is valued. You need to live not aimlessly, but for the benefit of yourself, loved ones, the people and the Motherland. Only then will a person be truly happy.

« End justifies the means”- it is believed that this phrase became the motto of the Jesuit order and belongs to its organizer Escobar. In addition, this statement has become the basis of morality. Very often it is given a negative meaning, misinterpreting that any means can be justified by the end. But on the way to the goal, there may be means that will interfere with the achievement of the goal or be neutral towards it. Thus, the meaning of this phrase can be defined as follows: "The end can justify any means that contribute to its achievement."

Many see this statement as immoral, although the means themselves cannot be immoral. People who set goals or the goals themselves can be immoral.

In fact, the motto of the Jesuits was: "By any means." Christ commanded us the principles of love and kindness, while they acted immorally, discrediting Christianity. The order disappeared, greatly undermining the strength of the people's faith. The end did not justify the means.

We know that the goal and the means are linked, but no one can determine the strength and direction of this relationship, as well as how much means will lead to the achievement of the goal. It happens that the means used lead to the opposite goal. You should start by defining a goal. The goal should be the most realistic and achievable. Reality is a necessary quality in order not to follow the path of a false goal.

Moreover, the end and the means must be of the same measure. The goal must justify the means that are spent on it and, accordingly, the means must correspond to the goal. To achieve a goal, a person can use any goals that do not override him. moral character and his conscience. Means can also be any, even human life itself.

Every person has their own values. He will never sacrifice his highest value in order to reach the lowest. A society will be stable if the scale of values ​​of its members coincides. In modern society, human life is recognized as the highest value. This means that any moral goal should not endanger people's lives.

What determines justification of purpose? It can only be the social significance of the goal. Social significance is good and moral principles. This means that the goal justifies everything that adds up to the public good and does not contradict the moral principles accepted in society. The goal must be moral.

If the end must always be moral, which constitutes the public good, then the means must also be moral. A good end cannot be achieved by immoral means.

Purpose and means - these concepts always go together. We dream about something and plan how to achieve it, by what means to achieve the goal. And we often hear: "The end justifies the means", and some add: "... if it is noble." I don't agree with this. Even for the sake of a noble goal, one cannot go to betrayal, treason, crime. After all, noble means pure, moral. It is impossible to go to nobility in an immoral way. Russian literature has repeatedly warned the reader about the danger of such a path.

Let us turn to the work of F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". The hero Rodion Raskolnikov is a poor student, a man of exceptional intelligence and will. Understanding the injustice of the social structure, he creates a theory according to which he divides all people into "trembling creatures" and those who "have the right."

Of course, he wants to include himself in the second category. But how to test this theory? It is necessary to kill the useless old pawnbroker, to test yourself, - the hero decides. They will be tormented by pangs of conscience - it means that you are an ordinary person, you can “step over” - that means “you have the right”. But not only the desire to test the correctness of the theory drives Raskolnikov, but also a very noble goal - to help the "humiliated and offended." It is no coincidence that already at the beginning of the novel, Dostoevsky leads us through the streets of St. Petersburg, where the powers that be are doing lawlessness. We meet people like Marmeladov. We are witnessing the beggarly life that members of his family lead, and the eldest daughter Sonya is forced to go “on a yellow ticket”, otherwise her brothers and sisters will die of hunger. Yes, and Raskolnikov's sister is also forced to sacrifice herself in order to help her brother finish university. Seeing this, wanting to help those who drag out a miserable existence, Raskolnikov commits murder. But even for a noble goal, not all means are good! Like a true humanist writer, Dostoevsky debunks “the theory of the hero. Having committed a crime, Raskolnikov literally goes crazy: he is seized with a fever, he moves away from people, even those closest to him, internally approaches people who are hated by him (such as Svidrigailov). Unable to bear the pangs of conscience, the hero comes with a confession. But only in hard labor did he finally realize the perniciousness of his theory. The writer led him to the Bible, the main commandment of which is: "Thou shalt not kill." Raskolnikov realized the danger of his theory: one cannot reach a lofty goal with low means.

Thus, the heroes of Russian literature make us think about what means can be used to reach the goal. There is only one answer: only the path of morality will lead you to a noble goal. We must not forget about it.

“Is it possible to achieve noble goals by any, including dishonest means”? This issue can be debated and debated for a long time. One part of people is inclined to the opinion that it is possible, and the other says that it is impossible. In order to understand this, you must first understand: “What do we mean by the word honest and dishonest, bad and good”? Everyone understands these words in a completely different way. To understand this, you can turn to the animal world. Every day predators kill other animals to feed their young. They do it out of instinct, for them the goal is to feed their offspring, not to let them die.

There are two points of view on this question. On the one hand, the means to achieve noble goals must also be noble, otherwise the goal itself will not be considered noble. On the other hand, the means can be dishonest if the end itself requires it. Since we were given to write an essay on this topic, I still cannot decide for myself. I thought for a long time and finally came to the conclusion: "Noble goals can be achieved by dishonest means, only if these means do not cause serious harm to other people." I'm going to give an example. Suppose a child needs an expensive operation, but the parents do not have money for this operation. And then the father commits a crime: he decides to break into the house of a rich man and steal the amount he needs from him, without taking anything extra. I justify this man. After all, if he did not do this, then his child could die. Yes, he stole the money, but because of this amount, the other person will not become poorer. Bottom line: noble goals can be achieved by any, including dishonest means, only under one condition - if this does not cause serious harm to others.

« Can whether achieve noble goals any , in volume including and dishonest means »?