Is there really a good argument against this?

He didn't, but that's what his philosophy amounts to.

This.

Nice meme.

no it wasn't. he wrote one treatise on republics, and he wrote one on principalities. just because the one on principalities rustled you doesn't mean he was trolling

The end IS the means

You can never predict the outcome of the ends if you use any means necessary.
It's like fanning the hammer. Desperation to hit the target.

Meant for "this" to be

do u think ol' nick would have rocked out to this:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZVhU09Hjb6w

does she really say "like a tyrannical man, complete dominator, do it like you're fucking a beta"? convenient the lyrics for that line don't get displayed

This is not a sentence made to even be argumented against, it is a trope of common sense such as "Do what it takes", "Just do it", "A man's gotta do what he's gotta do", etc. A more profitable discussion would be gained from asking "does people have the same ends, and are these extensible to society as a thing in itself?" followed by "How do we solve conflicts of means when people are reaching for conflicting ends?".

yeah its called dueontology

>How do we solve conflicts of means when people are reaching for conflicting ends?

freddy already solved this, who ever has the strongest will becomes the master

conflict is a just a sorting process based on strongest will power

means don't guarantee ends

Good point. Because we cannot presume to know the ends of any given means, like God can (presumably), we therefore cannot justify what amounts to at most a prediction if the means being 'justified' are for instance brutal. In other words, while the means are being vindicated with respect to some end(s), that end is neither certain nor (for that matter) likely given that we cannot predict the future. Nonetheless the arrangement's necessary on far too many occasions. To justify 'austerity measures,' for example.
Though unjustifiable, it is often a necessary form. A necessary socio-political (and often individual) fiction.

The world is too cocka doodly absurd for you to be sure of any ends.

I wish they did

What an embarassment.

this is the conclusion i reached from meditating on the third reich too....

The ends justify the memes

12. Self-Sacrifice and Self-Aggrandisement

Yang Chu said: “Po-chêng-tse-kao would not part with a hair of his body for the benefit of others. He quitted his country and became a ploughman. The great Yü did not profit by his own body, which grew quite emaciated.

“If the ancients by injuring a single hair could have rendered a service to the world, they would not have done it; and had the universe been offered to a single person, he would not have accepted it.

“As nobody would damage even a hair, and nobody would do a favour to the world, the world was in a perfect state.”

Ch'in-Tse asked Yang Chu: “If by pulling out a hair of your body you would aid mankind, would you do it?”

Yang Chu answered: “Mankind is surely not to be helped by a single hair.”

Ch'in-Tse said: “But supposing it possible, would you do it?”

Yang Chu gave no answer.

Thereupon Ch'in-Tse told Meng-sun-Yang, who replied: “I will explain the Master's meaning.

“Supposing for tearing off a piece of your skin you were offered ten thousand gold pieces, would you do it?”

Ch'in-Tse said: “I would.”

Meng-sun-Yang again asked: “Supposing for cutting off one of your limbs you were to get a kingdom, would you do it?”

Ch'in-Tse was silent.

“See now,” said Meng-sun-Yang, “a hair is unimportant compared with the skin, and the skin also is unimportant compared with a limb.

“However, many hairs put together form skin, and many skins form a limb. Therefore, though a hair is but one among the many molecules composing the body, it is not to be disregarded.”

Ch'in-Tse replied: “I do not know how to answer you. If I were to ask Lao-tse and Kuan-Yin, your opinion would be found right, and so also if I were to consult great Yü and Me-ti.”

Meng-sun-Yang upon this turned round to his disciples, and spoke of something else.

>How do we solve conflicts of means when people are reaching for conflicting ends?

How do we solve conflicts of means when people are reaching for the same ends?

>Solve conflict

let's not be retarded please, one person wins and the others lose, conflict solved

If people are going for different ends that'll be the case. But so many times people are trying to get the same thing but have different ways about getting them. That's when you either have to find which way is actually best, leaving behind presuppositions, or find a new way

ok i see what you're saying but it seems like whoever can get to the ends fastest is going to say their means were justified and that the other guys means would have never worked, so it still comes down to whoever goes harder

>so it still comes down to whoever goes harder
Only if both means would've worked. If one means doesn't work it won't matter who goes hardest, the one with the best means will be achieve the end.
If they both work, yes, who ever works faster will win.
But we must remember that in this example both people are working for the same ends, therefor no matter who's means works the best both parties win

What defines the ends? After all ends can be viewed as means when viewed from different points of view. Even if you try to avoid this problem by saying that the ends are the satisfaction of all your needs, you would still be stumped because it is human nature to crave more after being satisfied.
The only thing that could be properly defined as the end would be something that couldn't possibly lead to another situation, such as becoming part of god. This type of end however usually requires an infinite amount of time to be achieved.
Would you suffer for an eternity if you were guaranteed that later you would have pure bliss?

>But we must remember that in this example both people are working for the same ends, therefor no matter who's means works the best both parties win

so why shouldn't the people who want those ends but dont have any really practical means due to moral spooks sit back and let trump handle the muslims, and then elect a liberal for free healthcare next time around...so again, the guy with the most efficient means is going to be the one to get it done, since the "moral" person can just sit back and let the other guy do the dirty work and tell themselves they opposed those means

>ctrl + f
>Kant
>0 results
God fucking damn it Veeky Forums.

see
even though it's misspelled

Oh well, maybe it's a typo. He seems to have a better grasp than most people here.

Innate morality exists

...

Because the moral person may not believe that the immoral person's means will reach the ends that they desire.
That or they will say that the costs/trade offs of those means isn't worth the ends.

I highly recomend the book Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.
It doesn't advocate for either side but it does explain why some sides view a certain situation a certain way.

Machiavelli never said that. Ovid did in his Heroides, though, so it was likely a well known saying.

This oft badly translated phrase occurs in Chapter 18 of The Prince. The Italian is "si guarda al fine" which is more properly rendered by Allan Gilbert as "everybody looks at their results".

The full context is;

>Everybody sees what you appear to be; few percieve what you are, and those few dare not contradict the belief of the many, who have the majesty of the government to support them. As to the actions of all men and especially those of princes, against whom charges cannot be brought in court, EVERYBODY LOOKS AT THEIR RESULT. So if a prince succeeds in conquering and holding his state, his means are always judged honorable and everywhere praised, because the mob is always fascinated by appearances and by the outcome of an affair; and in the world the mob is everything; the few find no room there when the many crowd together.

>The Prince was satire
love this brainlet meme

the world is only justifiable as an aesthetic phenomenon

The book on Principalities was written to be a manual for a Prince to understand Italian power politics. So, in Italian power politics, the ends justify the means.

Machiavelli did not make any moral judgement in The Prince because he was only trying to say how things actually are.

the means (of production) have to be owned by the working class to justify anything

This. It was just an explanation/journal of the political climate at that time

Incorrect

this picture only proves my point