A noble goal is an ambiguous concept. After all, by this expression each person can understand something individual. Someone considers their own well-being, acquired at the expense of someone else’s grief, to be a noble goal. I believe that no goal should give rise to evil and violence. There is always another, more humane way to make people's lives better.

To confirm my words, let us turn to the immortal novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". In it, the main character, Rodion Raskolnikov, reflects on the theory of dividing people into two categories: “those who have the right” and “trembling creatures.” The former are capable of committing the most inhumane acts without remorse and at the same time not being punished, since their actions bring the benefit of the whole society . But the latter are not capable of this and should only serve to achieve the goals of people of the first type. The young student could not decide who exactly he belonged to. Therefore, he decided to check the most radical method: by killing, as it seemed to him, a useless and selfish old woman - a pawnbroker.

But murder alone was not enough; her sister, Lizaveta, who caught Raskolnikov at the crime scene, was also killed. Are you enrolling in 2019? Our team will help you save your time and nerves: we will select directions and universities (according to your preferences and expert recommendations); we will fill out applications (all you have to do is sign); we will submit applications to Russian universities (online, by e-mail, by courier); we will monitor competition lists ( we will automate the tracking and analysis of your positions); we will tell you when and where to submit the original (we will evaluate the chances and determine the best option). Entrust the routine to professionals - more details.

Following this, a new stage begins in Rodion’s life, associated with mental anguish and remorse. Only then does he realize the inconsistency and absurdity of his theory.

Another character, Svidrigailov, also confirms that not every end justifies the means. On the one hand, he is a virtuous person who financially helps orphans and Sonya Marmeladova. But on the other hand, in order to satisfy his needs, he is ready to commit any crime, without any regret. Such a person is mired in a pool of depravity. Svidrigailov's story ends with suicide. He understands that his life is meaningless and sinful. In the epilogue of the novel, Rodion realizes that not all ends justify the means and that his theory can only harm society, and not make it happy. Therefore, he finds salvation in faith and in love for Sonya Marmeladova.

In conclusion, I would like to say that everything in life is not simple, so sometimes controversial situations arise in which it seems that if you deviate from the rules of morality, you can bring great benefit to all of humanity. But it’s not for nothing that there is a proverb: “You can’t build your happiness on someone else’s misfortune.”

Useful material

ESSAY 2

In this text, A. Vladimirov is most concerned about the problem of the goal and the choice of means to achieve it.

This moral problem is revealed by the author using the example of Nikolai Savushkin, whose daughter was very sick. He wanted to make medicine from the horns of an antelope. Having already prepared to shoot, Savushkin noticed her cub next to her and retreated. A. Vladimirov makes the reader think about the fact that happiness cannot be built from someone else’s misfortune. It is no coincidence that the writer depicts the suffering of the hero (“Tears flowed down his face, mixed with sweat, and, like acid, corroded his skin”, “And you see how your child wanders alone through the endless labyrinths of pain”) The hero’s action indicates that he could not step over his conscience, did not take sin into his soul. It seems to me that this antelope was a moral test of the hero, and if he had killed her, the girl would have died too. Thus, A. Vladimirov leads us to the conclusion: when striving for something, a person must weigh his intentions with conscience and morality.

I completely agree with the writer. A person must first of all be guided by mercy, love for all living things. If he achieves his goal by dishonest, dirty means, then it will not bring him anything good. I want to give two arguments as convincing evidence.

In the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time,” G. Pechorin sets himself the goal of making Princess Mary fall in love with him. He achieves this goal, acts very dishonestly and vilely towards Mary. As a result, Pechorin’s heart becomes even colder.

The main character of F. M. Dostoevsky's brilliant novel "Crime and Punishment" Rodion Raskolnikov asks the question whether it is permissible to commit a small evil for the sake of a great good, whether a noble goal justifies a criminal means. Dostoevsky portrays him as a magnanimous dreamer, a humanist who, in despair, decides to break the moral law - to kill the old pawnbroker, to commit evil for the sake of good. To understand the horror of the perfect bloodshed, Raskolnikov needed long suffering and hard labor. Only at the end of the novel does the hero realize the absurdity of his crazy idea and gain peace of mind. Svidrigailov is a man who does not think about the means of achieving his goals. Sinking into the pool of depravity, he commits suicide, showing the dead end of Raskolnikov's theory.

A. Vladimirov’s text made an indelible impression on me. In conclusion, I want to say that a person must check his every action with conscience and morality, and in no case deviate from this rule.

ASHOT! Move your work to another section, and I will check it right away. Here it is off-topic.

End justifies the means. Target justifies the means - this phrase has long become a catchphrase. It is believed that the famous Italian Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is the author of the aphorism “The end justifies the means.” This is an erroneous judgment. In fact
different authors have similar statements. This maxim became widely known and acquired a negative connotation, primarily because it was probably used as its motto by the Jesuit order. With these words, the Jesuits Ehekobar and Hermann Busenbaum (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. Thus, 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 means with purity of purpose.
And yet, this catchphrase 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 to find it, which costs much more. But not everything is so simple. The Japanese have such a parable.
“Once upon a time, an 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 witnessed all this said:
- Regretting the sunken hay, the official bought torches and hired people. Much more than ten sen will be spent on this search. What's the point?
After hearing this remark, the official replied:
- Yes, some people think so. Many people are greedy in the name of saving money. But the money spent does not disappear: it continues to travel around the world. Another thing is the ten sen that drowned in the river: if we don’t pick them up now, they will be lost to the world forever.” Target. It is different for everyone, just as everyone finds (or is just looking for) their own meaning in life. A similar image, but with a drachma (a 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 a candle and sweep the room and search carefully until she finds it, and when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors and says: rejoice with me: I have found the lost drachma. Thus, I tell you, there is joy among the Angels of God over one sinner who repents.” Jesus Christ told this parable of the lost coin 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 the love and mercy of God for all people - and sinners too. Parables about how God himself seeks a sinner, to save him, and what joy there is in heaven for those who repent.
So are the means justified? target? One can also recall one of the most significant and famous Russian writers and thinkers in the world, F.M. Dostoevsky (1821-1881), who wrote in the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” about a child’s tear, about the suffering of a small creature, about the injustice and “nonsense” reigning in the world ”:“...Without her, they say, man could not have stayed on earth, for he would not have known good and evil. Why learn this damn good and evil when it costs so much? Yes, the whole world of knowledge is not worth these tears of a child to the “god”…”Something to think about. Everyone decides for themselves. You just need to remember that nothing is new on earth. Think for yourself, unless, of course, you want them to decide for you.

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

Therefore, in order not to be driven into a corner with noodles on their ears, it is very useful for any debater, talker, and even unskilled mental worker to sort out all the tricky questions in advance, and to give hypocrites/demagogues an immediate and specific punishment.

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

Suckling this triangle from all sides and corners, pretenders to the “conscience of the people” proceed from several simple theses/postulates.
Good cannot be achieved through evil.
A good goal can be achieved only by good methods.
The goal must be moral.
Good goals are not achieved through 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.

But because there is no abstract goal, no abstract means, no abstract justice, no abstract morality, no abstract “good.” The goal, means and morality are always specific. Therefore, discussing this topic in isolation from the real context is as absurd as the disputes of medieval scholastics about how many devils could 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 an outrage against God’s creation and other “immoral blasphemy.”
And vice versa, 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 similar 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 for 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 his 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 strength allows you to have. (F. Nietzsche)

Our strength will allow us to overcome fear, resist temptation, endure pain, come to terms with loss, make sacrifices, etc. there will be one solution. If they don't allow it, something else will happen. There is no particular point in condemning a person after this for cowardice, immorality and other sins. No one can jump above their own head. And in the case where the goal is survival, it is unlikely that anyone will think long about means, morality, ethics and other etiquettes. And even more so, about how his actions will be regarded by moralists.

Therefore, the problem under discussion can be correctly posed (and solved) only in the form of an equation of five parameters: emotions, goal, conditions, means, morality. And it is no coincidence that morality is placed at the end of the list, since “its word is the last.”

However, there is one more catch! The goal is not the result! A goal is a plan, an intention. And they are not judged for intentions, they are judged for deeds. And while there are no deeds, you cannot attach a goal to the deed. What is Manilov from “Dead Souls” famous for? There is a sea of ideas and goals, but no actions. So, the above statement of the problem is legally illiterate. At least at the planning 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, it was impossible to justify the surrender of the capital, no matter what the motivation was.

The “means-end” problem is tightly linked to another “eternal problem” - “winners are not judged.” Having started to discuss it, we return again to morality and get hung up until we collapse from fatigue.

To complete the picture, it should be mentioned that the chatter of moralizers about morality and generosity lasts only until the moment they themselves find themselves 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 have their “political correctness” and “tolerance” gone! (sic!) It is easy to have high morals while being outside the context of reality. People have an intelligible catchphrase about this: “tugging is not moving bags.”

Some understand the statement in question only in terms of “the goal must justify the funds 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. Attempting to solve problems with abstract reasoning is a waste of time. Analysis of the goal-means relationship makes sense only in the context of a specific situation. Everything is good, everything is evil, the difference is in the details. In which, as we know, the devil hides. Therefore, only after a comprehensive consideration of all the details by a special body called the “Supreme Court” can an assessment be made: punishment, acquittal, or just public condemnation.

2. Don’t be embarrassed by clever people who try to give a negative assessment of your actions, limit your resources, drive you into the 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 beating in the most decisive and harsh form.

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

Notes

“Is it possible to achieve noble goals by any means, including dishonest ones”? This issue can be discussed and debated for a long time. One part of people is inclined to believe that it is possible, while the other says that it is impossible. In order to understand this, you must first understand: “What do we mean by the word honestly and dishonestly, bad and good”? Everyone understands these words completely differently. To understand this, we can turn to the animal world. Every day, predators kill other animals to feed their young. They do this out of instinct, for them the goal is to feed their offspring and not 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 may be dishonest if the end itself requires it. Ever since we were given the opportunity to write an essay on this topic, I still can’t decide for myself. I thought for a long time and finally came to the conclusion: “Noble goals can be achieved through dishonest means only if these means do not cause serious harm to other people.” I'm going to give an example. Let's say a child needs an expensive operation, but the parents do not have the money for this operation. And then the father commits a crime: he decides to break into a rich man’s house and steal from him the amount he needs, without taking anything extra. I justify this man. After all, if he had not done this, his child could have died. Yes, he stole money, but because of this amount, another person will not become poor. Bottom line: noble goals can be achieved by any means, including dishonest ones, only under one condition - if this does not cause serious harm to others.

« Can whether achieve noble goals any , V volume number And dishonest means »?

Block width px

Copy this code and paste it onto your website

Slide captions:

Preparation for the final essay 2017. "Goal and Means"

FIPI comment

The concepts of this direction are interrelated and allow us to think about a person’s life aspirations, the importance of meaningful goal setting, the ability to correctly correlate the goal and the means of achieving it, as well as the ethical assessment of human actions. Many literary works feature characters who deliberately or mistakenly choose unsuitable means to realize their plans. And it often turns out that a good goal only serves as a cover for true (base) plans. Such characters are contrasted with heroes for whom the means of achieving a high goal are inseparable from the requirements of morality.

Meaning of concepts

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

Facilities- these are the methods by which we will achieve the goal.

Let's consider the concepts of “goal” and “means” from different sides

. 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 desire to reach the top, about achievements and about goals as the engine of progress, about self-realization, great discoveries possible only thanks to goals, about obstacles on the way to a set goal, about goals 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 through dishonest means can be justified, about the importance of human life, about ways to achieve the goal, and about the ethical assessment of methods and means of achieving the goal. A goal is an imaginary peak, individual for each person, to which he strives and tries to fulfill all the necessary conditions, requirements, and responsibilities that depend on him.

Synonyms

"Target": intention, completion, task, task, design, plan, project, calculation, target

"Means": way, opportunity, method; tool, device, weapon; panacea, tool, system, path, asset, resource, state, method, recipe, drug

Themes

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

6. How does the goal a person sets for himself affect his destiny?
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 gone”?

Working on the composition of an essay

1. Introduction. A 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. Answer to the question asked in the essay topic:
1) thesis 1+ illustration (story by I.A. Bunin “The Gentleman from San Francisco”);
2) thesis 2+ illustration (goals of Pierre Bezukhov and Andrei Bolkonsky, heroes of Leo Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”

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

LIFE GOALS OF LITERARY CHARACTERS

“Woe from Wit” by A. Griboyedov

The means chosen by the “Famus society” are low. A striking example of this is A. Molchalin, a man who is ready to do anything for the sake of career advancement, money, and well-being. He tries to please everyone, to please, to flatter, to be a hypocrite. The hero learned well the lessons of his father, who taught his son:
Firstly, please all people without exception: the owner where he happens to live,
The boss with whom I will serve,
To his servant who cleans clothes;
Doorman, janitor to avoid evil,
To the janitor's dog, so that it is affectionate.
If in order to achieve his goal he needs to play the role of a man in love, he uses this means too, cleverly deceiving Sophia in the sincerity of his feelings, dreaming of marrying her and becoming related to the influential Famusov. Well, most likely some means will still lead him to his desired goal. Chatsky is sure of this, speaking about the hero: “But by the way, he will reach the well-known levels, because nowadays 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, but being served is sickening...”), dreams of sincere love, strives to be honest, to have his own position, principles and not change them, no matter how much they contradict society. Yes, his goal and means are noble, but what anger they cause in society! “Woe from Wit” is experienced by Chatsky, misunderstood by those around him and recognized by them as crazy. But this is exactly how, according to the author, one should live - honestly, with dignity.

Choosing a worthy goal in life, using the appropriate means to achieve it, not making mistakes, not following the path of imaginary values - this is so important in order to become an individual, to be honest with yourself and people. It is this conclusion that readers of A.S. Griboyedov’s play come to.

Writing an essay together (workshop)

Topic: “Are all means good to achieve a noble goal?”

Writing an introduction

Goal and means... These concepts often go together. The goal is... On the path to the goal, each person chooses his own means. For one it is... For another... Still others choose...

(then we move on to the thesis)

Are all means good to achieve a noble goal?

Introduction

Goal and means – these concepts always go together. We dream about something and plan how we can achieve it, by what means we can 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, you cannot commit betrayal, treason, or 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 dangers 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 system, 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 classify himself as the latter. But how to test this theory?“We need to kill the old money-lender that no one needs, and test ourselves,” the hero decides. If you are tormented by pangs of conscience, it means that you are an ordinary person, you can “overstep” - that means you “have the right.” But it is not only the desire to test the correctness of the theory that drives Raskolnikov, but also a very noble goal - to help the “humiliated and insulted.” It is no coincidence that already at the beginning of the novel, Dostoevsky takes us through the streets of St. Petersburg, where the powers that be are committing lawlessness. We meet people like Marmeladov. We witness the miserable 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. And Raskolnikov’s sister is also forced to sacrifice herself in order to help her brother graduate from university.

Seeing this, wanting to help those who eke 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 by a fever, he moves away from people, even the closest ones, and internally becomes close to people who hate him (such as Svidrigailov). Unable to withstand the pangs of conscience, the hero confesses. But only in hard labor did he finally realize the harmfulness of his theory. The writer led him to the Bible, the main commandment of which is: “Thou shalt not kill.” Raskolnikov understood the danger of his theory: you cannot achieve a high goal with low means.

Conclusion

READ THE INTRODUCTION, PAYING ATTENTION TO THE THESIS:
Goal and means – these concepts always go together. We dream about 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, you cannot commit betrayal, treason, or 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 dangers of such a path.

AGAIN WE FOCUS ON THE THESIS:

Thus, the heroes of Russian literature make us think about what means we can use to achieve our goal. There is only one answer: only the path of morality will lead you to a noble goal. We must not forget about this.

“Dead Souls” N.V. Gogol

"End justifies the means". These words are so suitable for the hero of N.V. Gogol’s poem Chichikov! The goal is clearly set by the hero (it was already indicated by his father in childhood: “ Most of all, take care and save a penny: this thing is more reliable than anything else in the world...")- wealth, nobility, position in society. Step by step the hero goes towards 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 made from wax, and carefully sews them into bags of 5 kopecks. And later, any fraud, if it led to money or promotion, was good for the hero. Let us remember how cleverly he deceived his boss by promising to marry his daughter. But after receiving the next rank I forgot about it ( “...cheated, cheated, damn son!”) It seemed that there could be nothing more terrible than the sale of “dead souls,” but Chichikov sells them, not disdaining anything, because this can bring him significant income. Even secular society, corrupted by the pursuit of money, does not understand the hero, and this method of profit is alien to him. Chichikov can find an approach to anyone and literally charm the entire society. By gaining the trust of the landowners, he commits illegal transactions. And everything would be fine if it weren’t for Korobochka, who decided in the city to find out if she had gone cheap when selling dead souls, if not for Nozdryov with his directness, who publicly inquired 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 yet another dubious undertaking. Of course, the author hoped that a person could change. It is no coincidence that he wrote the 2nd volume, in which he showed good heroes. But N. Gogol himself realized that the heroes turned out to be too unrealistic, that it was very difficult to get rid of their vices in people, so he burned this volume.
The desire to be rich is always common to people. This goal is well understood. But does a person always use decent means? Doesn't he sink 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

A person's character is formed throughout his life. Sometimes some goals and values are replaced by others. Much depends on the environment, on changes both in the life of the person himself and the entire country and 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 and the means he used to achieve them.
At the beginning of the novel, the hero dreams of glory, goes to war with Napoleon in order 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 and the clouds floating across it, he realized that he had to live according to the laws of nature, that all his goals were so base and worthless. Meeting with Natasha in Otradnoye, overhearing her words about the beauty of the night, in which there is so much desire to live to the fullest - all this influenced Andrei. He wanted to be useful to people, to benefit them ( “... it is necessary for everyone to know me, so that my life does not go on for me alone... so that it is reflected on everyone and so that they all live with me). He is also thinking through 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, making his contribution to great things. And he also realized that he must be able to forgive, because it was precisely the fact that he was not able to once understand and forgive Natasha that deprived him of the love of such a woman! Before his death, Andrei realized this , “...the patient love for people that his sister taught him was revealed to him!”
The author makes his readers think about many things, and first of all about how to live on this earth, what kind of person to be. L. Tolstoy’s favorite heroes 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. A person is valued by deeds and actions. One must live not aimlessly, but with benefit for oneself, 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 became the basis of morality. Very often it is given a negative meaning, incorrectly interpreting that any means can be justified by the goal. 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: “An end can justify any means that contribute to its achievement.”

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

In fact, the Jesuit motto was: “By any means necessary.” Christ commanded us the principles of love and goodness, while they acted immorally, discrediting Christianity. The Order disappeared, significantly weakening the strength of people's faith. The end did not justify the means.

We know that the goal and the means are interconnected, but no one can determine the strength and direction of this relationship, as well as what amount of means will lead to achieving the goal. It happens that the means used lead to the opposite goal. You should start by defining your 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.

In addition, the goal and the means must have the same measure. The goal must justify the means 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 contradict his moral qualities and his conscience. The means can also be any, even human life itself.

Each person has his own values. He will never sacrifice his highest value to achieve his 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 for a goal? This 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 goal must always be moral, which constitutes the public good, then the means must also be moral. A good goal cannot be achieved by using immoral means.

The question of the goal and the means to achieve it has worried humanity since ancient times. Many writers, philosophers and public figures have reflected on it and have used historical, life and literary arguments to prove their point. In the Russian classics there were also many answers and examples that, as a rule, prove the statement that the paths of achievement must correspond in everything to what needs to be achieved, otherwise it loses all meaning. In this collection, we have listed the most striking and illustrative examples from Russian literature for the final essay in the direction of “Goals and Means.”

In Pushkin’s novel “The Captain’s Daughter,” the main character always chose the right path to achieve goals, however, no less noble. Thanks to this, from an unintelligent nobleman, Grinev turns into a sincere officer, ready to sacrifice his life in the name of duty. Having sworn allegiance to the empress, he honestly serves, defending the fortress, and even death at the hands of rebel robbers does not frighten him. Just as honestly, he sought Masha’s favor, and achieved it. The opposite of Pyotr Grinev in the novel - Shvabrin - on the contrary, uses any means to achieve the goal, choosing the most vile of them. Having set out on the path of betrayal, he pursues personal gain, demands reciprocity from Masha, without hesitating to denigrate her in the eyes of Peter. In choosing goals and means, Alexey is driven by spiritual cowardice and self-interest, because he is devoid of ideas about honor and conscience. Mary rejects him for this reason, because a good goal cannot be achieved by deception.
What should be the final goal if the means to achieve it are cruelty, deception and human lives? In the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov's "Hero of Our Time" Grigory Pechorin's goals are momentary, encapsulated in the desire for momentary victories, to achieve which he chooses complex and sometimes cruel means. Hidden in his victories is a persistent search for meaning in life, which the hero is unable to find. In this search, he destroys not only himself, but also everyone who surrounds him - Princess Mary, Bela, Grushnitsky. To revive his own soul, he plays with the feelings of others, unwittingly becoming the cause of their misfortunes. But in the game with his own life, Grigory is hopelessly losing, losing those few people who were dear to him. “I realized that chasing lost happiness is reckless,” he says, and the goal, to achieve which so much effort and other people’s grief was put into, turns out to be illusory and unattainable.
In the comedy A.S. Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”, the society in which Chatsky is forced to live lives according to market laws, where everything is bought and sold, and a person is valued not by his spiritual qualities, but by the size of his wallet and career success. Nobility and duty are nothing here compared to the importance of rank and title. That is why Alexander Chatsky turns out to be misunderstood and not accepted into a circle where mercantile goals dominate, justifying any means.
He enters into a fight with Famus society, challenges Molchalin, who resorts to deception and hypocrisy in order to get a high position. Even in love, Alexander turns out to be a loser, because he does not defile the goal with vile means, he refuses to squeeze the breadth and nobility of his heart into the narrow framework of generally accepted and vulgar concepts with which Famusov’s house is replete.
A person is valuable by his deeds. But his deeds, even if subordinated to a high goal, do not always turn out to be good. In the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's “Crime and Punishment” Rodion Raskolnikov decides for himself an important question from a moral point of view: does the end justify the means? Can he, according to his theory, dispose of people's lives at his own discretion?
The answer lies in the title of the novel: Raskolnikov's mental anguish, after the atrocity he committed, proves that his calculation was incorrect and his theory was erroneous. A goal based on unjust and inhumane means depreciates itself and becomes a crime for which sooner or later one must be punished.
In the novel M.A. Sholokhov's "Quiet Flows the Flow" the fate of the heroes is swept away by the revolutionary elements. Grigory Melekhov, who sincerely believes in a happy and wonderful communist future, is ready to give his life for the well-being and prosperity of his native land. But in the context of life, bright revolutionary ideas turn out to be untenable and dead. Gregory understands that the struggle between whites and reds, seemingly aimed at a “beautiful tomorrow,” in fact represents violence and reprisals against the helpless and dissenters. Brilliant slogans turn out to be deception, and behind the lofty goal hides the cruelty and arbitrariness of the means. The nobility of his soul does not allow him to come to terms with the evil and injustice that he observes around him. Tormented by doubts and contradictions, Gregory is trying to find the only correct path that will allow him to live honestly. He is unable to justify the numerous murders committed in the name of a ghostly idea that he no longer believes in.
A. Solzhenitsyn’s novel “The Gulag Archipelago” is a study related to the political history of the USSR, according to Solzhenitsyn - “an experience of artistic research”, in which the author analyzes the history of the country - a utopia, building an ideal world on the ruins of human lives, numerous victims and lies, disguised for humanitarian purposes. The price for the illusion of happiness and peace, in which there is no place for individuality and dissent, turns out to be too high. The problems of the novel are diverse, since they include many questions of a moral nature: is it possible to justify evil in the name of good? What unites victims and their executioners? Who is responsible for mistakes made? Supported by rich biographical and research material, the book leads the reader to the problem of ends and means, convincing him that one does not justify the other.
It is human nature to seek happiness as the main meaning of life, its highest goal. For her sake, he is ready to use any means, but does not understand that this is unnecessary. The main character of the story V.M. Shukshin “Boots” - to Sergei Dukhanin - manifestations of tender feelings are not at all easy, because he is not used to unjustified tenderness and is even ashamed of it. But the desire to please someone close to him, the desire for happiness, pushes him to spend a lot. The money spent on buying an expensive gift turns out to be an unnecessary sacrifice, because his wife only needed attention. Generosity and the desire to give warmth and care fill the somewhat coarsened but still sensitive soul of the hero with happiness, which, as it turns out, is not so difficult to find.
In the novel by V.A. Kaverin's "Two Captains" the problem of ends and means is revealed in the confrontation between two characters - Sanya and Romashka. Each of them is driven by their own goals, each of them decides what is really important to them. In search of solutions, their paths diverge, fate pits them against each other in a duel that determines the moral guidelines of each, proves the noble strength of one, and the vile baseness of the other. Sanya is driven by honest, sincere aspirations; he is ready to take a difficult but direct path to find out the truth and prove it to others. Chamomile pursues small goals, achieving them in no less petty ways: lies, betrayal and hypocrisy. Each of them is experiencing the painful problem of choice, in which it is so easy to lose yourself and those you truly love.
A person does not always clearly understand his goal. In the Roman L.N. Tolstoy's "War and Peace" Andrei Bolkonsky is in search of himself and his place in life. His shaky life guidelines are influenced by fashion, society, and the opinions of friends and relatives. He is delirious of glory and military exploits, dreams of making a career in the service, but not just rising to high ranks, but gaining eternal glory as a winner and hero. He goes to war, the cruelties and horrors of which instantly showed him all the absurdity and illusory nature of his dreams. He is not ready, like Napoleon, to follow the bones of soldiers to glory. The desire to live and make the lives of other people beautiful set new goals for Bolkonsky. Meeting Natasha instills love in his soul. However, in a moment that requires his perseverance and understanding, he gives in under the weight of circumstances and abandons his love. He is again tormented by doubts about the correctness of his own goals, and only before his death Andrei understands that the best moments of life, its great gifts are contained in love, forgiveness and compassion.
Character makes a person. It determines his life goals and guidelines. In “Letters about the good and the beautiful” D.S. Likhachev’s problem of the goal and the means to achieve it is considered by the author as one of the most important, forming the young reader’s concepts of honor, duty, and truth. “The end justifies the means” is a formula unacceptable to the author. On the contrary, every person should have a goal in life, but no less important are the methods that he uses to achieve what he wants. In order to be happy and in harmony with one’s own conscience, it is necessary to make a choice in favor of spiritual values, giving preference to good deeds and beautiful thoughts.

In war, all means are good. Did you hear? For sure. Have you ever heard the phrase “the ends justify the means”? Of course yes. All these phrases have something in common. Is it that you can use any methods to achieve your goal? But is it? Is it possible to use this saying as your life credo in all cases?

Looking ahead, a sense of responsibility is important in an adult. Without this quality it is impossible to imagine real life and true determination.

Now we can consider this issue in more detail. He is ticklish, to put it mildly. Let's just say that an adult should have several goals, and one main one. A dominant desire is necessary so that a person does not become scattered. Other goals are important so that the idea does not become overvalued. Then it’s not far from the psychiatric hospital.

The same alcoholism, for example. Yes, addiction can be considered as a special case of overvalued ideas, when one goal occupies not only a dominant, but the main position in a person’s life. This is why alcoholics and drug addicts abandon their loved ones, jobs, and even abandon themselves in the name of alcohol.

An extremely valuable idea is when a person is fixated, for example, on the fact that the floor should be perfectly polished. That is, some little thing takes up a disproportionate amount of space in his head. And, as a result, in the name of the ideal shine of the floor covering, we can completely forget about the sense of responsibility, which distinguishes an adult from a child.

Does the end always not justify the means?

If you look at it this way objectively, this is not always the case. Very often, in the name of a good purpose, the slightest dirty tricks can be done. But at the same time, we must take into account that relationships with people will deteriorate for a while or you may even have to go to prison. But this is an unpleasant thing.

Always analyze your actions not only to see how much closer they bring you to your goal, but also what price you will have to pay. If you spend too much of your life's resources on achieving a goal, the result will not be pleasant to you, even if you have been dreaming about it for 20 years.

And in general, refuse to take proverbs in a stereotyped way. They are certainly smart and can be used in many situations. But not everyone. Take a smart, creative approach to your life and you will see how much more interesting it has become to exist in this world. There must be balance in everything, including when achieving a goal.

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

Essay