Final essay in the direction of “Goals and Means”
Introduction-64 words
Goals and means...What is it? These are two concepts that are interconnected. They allow a person to think about life aspirations. Without a goal there is no real life; a goal is a beacon that lights our way. How to live life honestly and with dignity, using permitted means that are inseparable from moral requirements? What is the relationship between ends and means? There are many examples in the literature that highlight this problem.
2-a
Main part.
The first thesis and the first literary argument. Means are good when they comply with moral standards.
Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov, the author shows how Molchalin persistently and persistently achieves his goal, using unpleasant means for this. The hero, striving to achieve a goal, begins to take actions. But which ones?! To do this, he cleverly uses Famusov’s daughter Sophia, pretending to be in love with her. In order to ensure that Famusov, who invited Molchalin from Tver to his service, does not fire him from his office, so that Molchalin stays in Moscow, the hero deceives Sophia in every possible way. He acts out scenes of love, and at the same time he sympathizes with the maid Lisa. INIn one of the actions, Molchalin falls from a horse to cause a certainSophia's reaction. The scene of falling from a horse is direct evidence of moral failureMolchalina. A fall is outright baseness.There's no way does not correspond to moral standards . But this is how the hero achieves his goal!
2-b
Main part.
The second thesis and the second literary argument.
In Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” we see several heroes and characters who also achieve their goals by means that are incompatible with moral requirements.
Helene, wanting to take possession of Pierre's inheritance, marries him not at all out of love, but in order to achieve her own selfish goal.Nothing can justify cruel indifference to the fate of another person!
And the father of a large family, Vasil Kuragin, and his nieces also act very vilely and disgustingly - for the sake of their own selfish goal, they are ready to steal the briefcase with the will of Count Bezukhov. How disgusting and disgusting they all are! And we are convinced that L.N. Tolstoy draws readers' attention to the fact thatthat to achieve the goal, not all means are good. Reading “War and Peace” we once again think about something very important in life: is it possible forachieve the goal go to any lengths ? We must not forget that human actions are related to the norms of morality and morality.
Conclusion
(conclusion).
Thus, the most important thing in life is setting high and noble goals. Only here the means differ. Therefore, I would like each of us to think seriously before finally deciding on the ways and means to achieve the goal.
And then determination will definitely be a positive start in life.
The volume of the essay is 300-350 words.
An essay of less than 250 words will not be counted!
Dear graduates!
Learn to ask interesting and meaningful questions about your essay topic!
Let's evaluate what you reveal in your essay!
Use interrogative and exclamatory sentences in your work!
Learn to check other people's essays using five criteria, and then you will have a very clear idea of what is required of you when writing the final essay!
Good luck to everyone!
Below we provide an example of a final essay for grade 11 on the topic “Goals and Means” with arguments from the literature. After reviewing the example below and the structure of writing the final essay, you will come to the exam with prepared theses and arguments on the topic!
Every active person with an active life position sets goals for itself, the achievement of which forms the meaning of our existence. And the choice of means to implement our plans largely depends on us, which can be moral, humane, or, on the contrary, immoral.
There is a famous expression: “The end justifies the means.” But is this always the case, or are there cases when it is worth realistically assessing the possibilities and consequences of your actions?
Sometimes, in order to achieve a goal, a person recklessly sacrifices his environment, often destroying the most harmless, naive and harmless.
In the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment" main character Rodion Raskolnikov decided to test whether he could step over moral standards and himself. He kills the old pawnbroker, her sister, who is carrying a child under her heart and who became an accidental witness to the murder.
Therefore, you cannot sacrifice not only your life, but also the well-being and comfort of someone in the name of your aspirations.
For the sake of realizing his petty, unworthy goals, an offended person may choose too cruel means, without thinking about the consequences.
For example, Eugene Onegin from the novel by A.S. Pushkin's Onegin, succumbing to a stupid insult, took revenge to the best friend. Lensky invited him to Tatyana’s name day, to whom he had recently denied love. They were seated opposite each other, and Onegin experienced severe discomfort. For this, he began to flirt with Lensky's fiancee. This led to a duel and the death of Vladimir.
This example confirms that before you take any action, no matter how much you want something, no matter what you dream about, you need to think about the consequences. Otherwise, such games can destroy someone's life, lead to loss of self-esteem and, ultimately, to the destruction of one's own personality.
It happens that a person sacrifices himself to achieve a goal.
Thus, in M. Gorky’s story “The Old Woman Izergil,” one of Danko’s heroes tore out his burning heart from his chest in order to illuminate the path for his people and lead them out of the dark forest. But his good intentions were not appreciated, someone simply crushed his heart with their foot.
In the name of good, we can do whatever we want, provided that it does not infringe on the interests of other people.
All we have the right to do is sacrifice ourselves, our means, our well-being in the name of realizing our dreams. This way we won’t harm anyone but ourselves, but we will also, quite possibly, help others.
Revenge has existed for a long time.
The Drevlyans took revenge on Prince Igor.
Princess Olga took revenge on the Drevlyans for the death of her husband.
The Montague and Capulet families no longer knew what caused their enmity, but they continued to feud to death. The victims of this enmity were young lovers - Romeo and Juliet.
The chain reaction of revenge is endless. There are many things in the world that can cause the death of a loved one. There are events that are difficult to survive. Revenge is sharp. It affects both the victim and the avenger, binding them forever, and the death or disappearance of one does not mean the end of the suffering of the other. It is impossible to adapt to the thirst for revenge. In the East they say: if you decide to take revenge, it is better to prepare two coffins at once.
The consequences of revenge, inflicted impulsively, in a state of passion, have the force of an explosion. But there is also petty revenge, mutual “pins”, perhaps witty, very quickly get out of control. For many people it turns into some kind of sport - rules, a system of blows in response. Life becomes hell, and no one can figure out who started it first. There can be no winners in this situation.
At the beginning of the 20th century, psychoanalysts established that the need for revenge is associated with a person’s desire to manage his life. When this is impossible, the avenger is capable of inflicting serious injuries even on himself - just to reproach the person who needs revenge. The terrible destructive power of revenge is incompatible with a humane personality.
Revenge has no meaning. But how many people, like the Count of Monte Cristo, build their lives on revenge! Today, in an aggressive world, a person cannot survive without an appropriate aggressive reaction.
Back in biblical times christian religion offered to leave the path of revenge, forgive each other big and small evils and live in harmony. But humanity is still following this path, living according to the rules of ancient times: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. As a consequence of the destruction of the World War II towers shopping center in New York, with planes carrying terrorists, there is a new war in Afghanistan - innocent people killed and maimed. Infinite evil can destroy our entire planet, about which Yuri Gagarin said: “Take care of our Earth, it is so small!” Probably, you need to rise high - into space itself, above yourself, above humanity, in order to see the Earth and feel what our first cosmonaut felt.
People must give up the desire to destroy. It is important to rise above yourself, step over terrible feelings and dare to live without evil. We must learn to forgive. There is even a science that was developed by New Age psychologists - the science of forgiveness. Let those who don’t know how to do it just really want it. Start living again. And be happy.
Essay-reasoning on thematic area Revenge and generosity
Generosity and mercy are integral character traits kind person.
Generosity is manifested in the ability to give in to someone not for the sake of profit, but to show kindness.
A generous person knows how to sacrifice himself if necessary.
Mercy is a manifestation of sincere love for one’s neighbor and a constant desire to help.
Mercy is shown to loved ones, to complete strangers, and to animals.
Helping a stranger on the street or feeding dogs in the freezing winter are all examples of mercy. There is a lot of evil and cruelty in the world. But if each of us developed such positive and wonderful qualities as mercy and generosity, then there would be more good.
Essay on the topic of Revenge and generosity
What is revenge?
Everyone has their own opinion, but all these opinions are united by only one meaning - this is evil in its manifestation.
By hating another, trying to offend someone else, we first of all humiliate only ourselves.
Life is a cruel boomerang that will definitely return, no matter how much you run from it.
Unfortunately, not everything can be punished by the law, but everything will be punished by the judgment of God.
So why take revenge on people?
Is this really what self-esteem speaks to us?
Only strong people know how to forgive.
Forgive not in words, but with your soul and heart.
Forgive sincerely and with a smile.
In my opinion, these qualities are given to us in order to be called people.
Not every person who has experienced grief, insults, humiliation and life’s difficulties will be able to lend a helping hand to their offenders, and not only to the offenders, but simply to those who are just as offended.
There is probably too much evil in our world that revenge has come to be taken for granted.
But will we prove anything to anyone by taking revenge?
Hardly. And whether we will need all this is also unknown.
I would like everyone to think about their actions and deeds.
You don't always have to hold a grudge. Let her go, otherwise she will never let you go.
goal and means
- concepts, the relationship of which constitutes a problem expressed in the well-known maxim “the end justifies the means” and associated with the value aspect of the relationship between the goal and the means and, accordingly, the choice and evaluation of means in expedient activity. Regarding the solution to this problem, the antithesis of the so-called is formulated in popular literature. Jesuitism/Machiavellianism, etc. abstract humanism; It is generally accepted that the Jesuits, as well as Machiavelli, preached the principle according to which the end unconditionally justifies the means, while abstract humanists (who included L.N. Tolstoy, M. Gandhi, A. Schweitzer) argued the opposite, namely: the real value of the means entirely determines the value of the results achieved.The named maxim goes back to the statement of T. Hobbes, made by him in explanation of the law of natural law (“On the Citizen,” chapter “Liberty,” I, 8); According to Hobbes, each person himself, on the basis of reason, i.e. natural law, must judge what means are necessary to ensure his own security. This maxim does not correspond to the spirit of Jesuit teaching, and although the formula “Whoever is allowed the goal, the means are also permitted” was developed in Jesuit theology (by G. Busenbaum), it only assumed that the means could be value-indifferent, and their value is determined by the worthyness of the goal , to achieve which they are used. The maxim was openly preached by a number of Jesuits, but principles of this kind were adhered to (openly or secretly) not only and not necessarily by the Jesuits, but in fact by all those thinkers and activists for whom ideal goals were the exclusive subject of moral evaluation.
From a formal point of view, the proposition that the end justifies the means is trivial: a good end actually justifies the means. From a pragmatic point of view, any practical, i.e., focused on a directly achievable result, action, by the very meaning of its intention, determines the means necessary to achieve it; achieving the goal compensates (justifies) the inconvenience and costs necessary for this. Within the framework of practical activity, efforts are recognized as a means only in their relation to a specific goal and acquire their legitimacy through the legitimacy of the goal. In praxeological terms, the problem of coordinating goals and means is: a) instrumental (the means must be adequate, i.e., ensure the effectiveness of the activity) and b) goal-oriented (the means must be optimal, i.e., ensure the effectiveness of the activity - achieving a result with at the lowest cost). Logically practical action(see Benefit) successful and effective activity is a significant factor in the transformation of value consciousness: the achieved goal confirms the updated evaluation criteria. In modern social sciences, antithetical ideas have been formed that correlate with the praxeological approach to this problem regarding the functional various types activities: a) in project activities It is recognized that means determine ends: technical capabilities assume a certain use (G. Shelsky), available financial resources predetermine the planned results and scale of the project; b) technical means are developed within the framework of systems of purposeful rational action, one does not develop separately from the other (J. Habermas).
The demagogic-moralizing approach should be distinguished from the pragmatic one (see Moralism), in which the maxim “the end justifies the means” is used to justify obviously unseemly or criminal actions. Moreover, what is referred to as a “good goal” is either (in long-term plan) a declaration, or (retrospectively) an event that chronologically followed the actions taken, and the actions themselves, taking into account the results obtained, do not really turn out to be a means, but are committed irresponsibly and willfully or for their own sake.
The actual ethical problem arises in connection with the assumption that for the sake of a good goal it turns out to be morally permissible to commit any necessary actions(even if they are usually considered unseemly, morally unacceptable, and even downright criminal). This point of view is objectively relativistic (see Relativism): although not all actions are considered acceptable, but only those that actually lead to what is recognized as the highest goal, ultimately the choice of means is determined by the strategy and tactics of the activity. This approach is fraught with a relativistic error. As Hegel showed, this error lies in the fact that actions considered as means are morally negative objectively, in themselves and in their concreteness, while the intended end is good only according to a subjective opinion based on the idea of abstract good. In other words, from an ethical point of view, although actions as means are performed for a specific purpose, their moral significance is determined not by expediency, but by their correlation with general principles. Therefore, the problem of ends and means is constituted as an ethical one in opposition to pragmatism and prudentialism.
Significant clarifications were made to the very formulation of the problem of goals and means/Ms. Dewey in polemics with L. D. Trotsky. 1. The concept of goal has a double meaning: a) goal as a plan and motive, focused on the final, all-justifying goal, and b) goal as an achieved result, or a consequence of the use of certain means; the achieved results themselves act as means in relation to the final goal. 2. The assessment of funds should also be made from the point of view of the result that is achieved with their help; This is the principle of the interdependence of ends and means. The goal as a result depends on the means used and is determined by them; but their assessment also depends on the goal as an achieved result. Since the final goal is the idea of final consequences and this idea is formulated on the basis of those means that are assessed as most desirable for achieving the goal, the final goal itself is a means of directing action. The scheme proposed by Dewey contains a real dialectic of ends and means, which is not exhausted by the generally accepted proposition that goals achieved they themselves become a means for subsequent goals (suffice it to say that this position was shared equally by both Trotsky and Andy). Adhering to the principle of interdependence requires a scrupulous and critical examination of the means used in terms of how closely the results they produce correspond to those intended. 3. The actual unity of goals and means can be ensured provided that the means are actually determined in accordance with the goals, and are not “derived,” as often happens, from considerations external to the situation of choice (thus, Trotsky justified the methods of revolutionary struggle used “laws of social development”, in particular “law class struggle"), otherwise it turns out that the goal is made dependent on the means, while the means are not derived from the goal. 4. The highest goals are moral goals; ultimately, they must be understood as an ideal, the achievement of which in the sense of practical implementation, strictly speaking, is impossible; in ideal-oriented activities, it is all the more necessary to take into account the principle of interdependence of means and goals as the practical consequences of the use of means. This position was clarified by J. P. Sartre: the impossibility of achieving a goal that is in the unattainable future and functions as an ideal leads to a situation where the connection between the goal and the means is concrete, while the goal as an ideal plays the role of an imperative. To develop this, additional clarification is necessary: morality is a value characteristic, but not the content of the goal. An attempt to accept “morality” as such as the goal of objectively defined activity, that is, to make the fulfillment of a principle or rule the content of actions, leads to rigorism. The assumption that “morality” can be the goal of activity results in practice in that the goals actually pursued are not analyzed for their compliance with moral criteria; intoxication with the goal leads to the assumption of any goals. The ideal, highest values and principles should not be the actual goal pursued, but the basis for actions and the criterion for their evaluation. Morality is not the final goal of life, but the path of life (N. A. Berdyaev).
The question of correlating actions with immediate results or general principles and, accordingly, the criteria for their evaluation was the subject of controversy (in a different ideological and methodological context) between representatives of action-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism (see Utilitarianism).
Lit.: Hegel G.V.F. Philosophy of Law. M., 1990, p. 189-190; Goals and means [selection of works by L. D. Trotsky, J. Dewey, J. P. Sartre, comments by A. A. Guseinova] - In: Ethical Thought. Scientific and journalistic readings. M-, 1992, p. 212-285; HabermasJ. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambr., 1990.
GOAL AND MEANS are concepts whose relationship constitutes a problem expressed in the well-known maxim “the end justifies the means” and associated with the value aspect of the relationship between the goal and the means and, accordingly, the choice and evaluation of means in expedient activity. Regarding the solution to this problem, the antithesis of the so-called is formulated in popular literature. Jesuitism/Machiavellianism, etc. abstract humanism; It is generally accepted that the Jesuits, as well as Machiavelli, preached the principle according to which the end unconditionally justifies the means, while abstract humanists (who included L.N. Tolstoy, M. Gandhi, A. Schweitzer) argued the opposite, namely: the real value of the means entirely determines the value of the results achieved.
The named maxim goes back to the statement of T. Hobbes, made by him to explain the essence of natural law (“On the Citizen,” chapter “Freedom”, I, 8); According to Hobbes, each person himself, on the basis of reason, i.e. natural law, must judge what means are necessary to ensure his own security. This maxim does not correspond to the spirit of Jesuit teaching, and although the formula “Whoever is allowed the goal, the means are also permitted” was developed in Jesuit theology (by G. Busenbaum), it only assumed that the means could be value-indifferent, and their value is determined by the worthyness of the goal , to achieve which they are used. The maxim was openly preached by a number of Jesuits, but principles of this kind were adhered to (openly or secretly) not only and not necessarily by the Jesuits, but in fact by all those thinkers and activists for whom ideal goals were the exclusive subject of moral evaluation.
From a formal point of view, the proposition that the end justifies the means is trivial: a good end actually justifies the means. From a pragmatic point of view, any practical, i.e., focused on a directly achievable result, action, by the very meaning of its intention, determines the means necessary to achieve it; achieving the goal compensates (justifies) the inconvenience and costs necessary for this. Within the framework of practical activity, efforts are recognized as a means only in their relation to a specific goal and acquire their legitimacy through the legitimacy of the goal. In praxeological terms, the problem of coordinating goals and means is: a) instrumental (the means must be adequate, i.e., ensure the effectiveness of activities) and b) goal-oriented (the means must be optimal, i.e., ensure the effectiveness of activities - achieving a result at the lowest cost ). According to the logic of practical action (see Benefit), successful and effective activity is a significant factor in the transformation of value consciousness: the achieved goal confirms updated evaluation criteria. In modern social sciences, antithetical ideas have been formed, correlating with the praxeological approach to this problem, regarding functionally different types of activities: a) in project activities it is recognized that means determine goals: technical capabilities presuppose a certain use of them (G Shelsky), available financial resources predetermine planned results and scope of the project; b) technical means develop within the framework of systems of purposeful rational action, one does not develop separately from the other (J. Habermas). The demagogic-moralizing approach should be distinguished from the pragmatic one (see Moralism), in which the maxim “the end justifies the means” is used to justify obviously unseemly or criminal actions. Moreover, what is mentioned as a “good goal” is either (in perspective) a declaration, or (retrospectively) an event that chronologically followed the actions taken, and the actions themselves, taking into account the results obtained, do not actually turn out to be a means, but are committed irresponsibly and willfully or for their own sake. The actual ethical problem arises in connection with the assumption that for the sake of a good goal it turns out to be morally permissible to perform any necessary actions (even if they are usually considered unseemly, morally unacceptable, or even downright criminal). This point of view is objectively relativistic (see Relativism): although not all actions are considered acceptable, but only those that actually lead to what is recognized as the highest goal, ultimately the choice of means is determined by the strategy and tactics of the activity. This approach is fraught with a relativistic error. As Hegel showed, this error lies in the fact that actions considered as means are morally negative objectively, in themselves and in their concreteness, while the intended end is good only according to a subjective opinion based on the idea of abstract good. In other words, from an ethical point of view, although actions as means are performed for a specific purpose, their moral significance is determined not by expediency, but by their correlation with general principles. Therefore, the problem of ends and means is constituted as an ethical one in opposition to pragmatism and prudentialism.
J. Dewey introduced significant clarifications into the very formulation of the problem of ends and means in his polemics with L. D. Trotsky. 1. The concept of goal has a double meaning: a) goal as a plan and motive, focused on the final, all-justifying goal, and b) goal as an achieved result, or a consequence of the use of certain means; the achieved results themselves act as means in relation to the final goal. 2. The assessment of funds should also be made from the point of view of the result that is achieved with their help; This is the principle of the interdependence of ends and means. The goal as a result depends on the means used and is determined by them; but their assessment also depends on the goal as an achieved result. Since the final goal is the idea of final consequences and this idea is formulated on the basis of those means that are assessed as most desirable for achieving the goal, the final goal itself is a means of directing action. The scheme proposed by Dewey contains a real dialectic of ends and means, which is not exhausted by the generally accepted position that achieved goals themselves become a means for subsequent goals (suffice it to say that this position was shared equally by both Trotsky and Gandhi). Adhering to the principle of interdependence requires a scrupulous and critical examination of the means used in terms of how closely the results they produce correspond to those intended. 3. The actual unity of goals and means can be ensured provided that the means are actually determined in accordance with the goals, and are not “derived,” as often happens, from considerations external to the situation of choice (thus, Trotsky justified the methods of revolutionary struggle used “laws of social development”, in particular “the law of class struggle”), otherwise it turns out that the goal is made dependent on the means, while the means are not derived from the goal. 4. The highest goals are moral goals; ultimately, they must be understood as an ideal, the achievement of which in the sense of practical implementation, strictly speaking, is impossible; in ideal-oriented activities, it is all the more necessary to take into account the principle of interdependence of means and goals as the practical consequences of the use of means. This position was clarified by J. P. Sartre: the impossibility of achieving a goal that is in the unattainable future and functions as an ideal leads to a situation where the connection between the goal and the means is concrete, while the goal as an ideal plays the role of an imperative. To develop this, additional clarification is necessary: morality is a value characteristic, but not the content of the goal. An attempt to accept “morality” as such as the goal of objectively defined activity, that is, to make the fulfillment of a principle or rule the content of actions, leads to rigorism. The assumption that “morality” can be the goal of activity results in practice in that the goals actually pursued are not analyzed for their compliance with moral criteria; intoxication with the goal leads to the assumption of any goals. The ideal, highest values and principles should not be the actual goal pursued, but the basis for actions and the criterion for their evaluation. Morality is not the final goal of life, but the path of life (N. A. Berdyaev).
The question of correlating actions with immediate results or general principles and, accordingly, the criteria for their evaluation was the subject of controversy (in a different ideological and methodological context) between representatives of action-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism (see Utilitarianism).
R. G. Apresyan
New philosophical encyclopedia. In four volumes. / Institute of Philosophy RAS. Scientific ed. advice: V.S. Stepin, A.A. Guseinov, G.Yu. Semigin. M., Mysl, 2010, vol.IV, p. 319-320.
Literature:
Hegel G.V.F. Philosophy of Law. M., 1990, p. 189-190; Goals and means [selection of works by L. D. Trotsky, J. Dewey, J. P. Sartre, comments by A. A. Guseinov]. - In the collection: Ethical Thought. Scientific and journalistic readings. M., 1992, p. 212-285; HabermasJ. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambr., 1990.
.jpg)
