Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ends justify the means


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The ends justify the means
Essay. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR and dicdef.  --ColourBurst 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter tripe, and not encyclopaedic...WP:OR; reads like a recycled first-year assignment. Wikipedia is also not a repository for the exposition of idiom. Byrgenwulf 07:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. More interesting than the comments above suggest, but still in effect a philosophically dubious dicdef. Vizjim 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Changing vote.
 * Keep and allow this to be improved. While not quite up to "good article" standards, I disagree that this is utter tripe or a dicdef. Many philosophers and ethicists have discussed this doctrine (as a defender, Leszek Kołakowski comes to mind), and there should at least be references to Consequentialism, which is the philosophical dressing of the doctrine, and to Sergey Nechayev, who popularized the phrase. --Lambiam Talk 10:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just include a brief explication of the concept in a subsection under the consequentialism article then? I agree that the sentiment has attracted philosophical attention, but it has a name: "the ends justify the means" is not the name of the concept but an aphorism or slogan.  As such, it could be defined in a dictionary of idiom, but the proper place for a discussion dealing with the philosophical implications of the doctrine, as the article in question tries to do, is in the article on consequentialism.  And the piece as it is written is positively riddled with moralistic undertones, even though a vague attempt at scholarly detachment has been made.  It is virtually irredeemable without a complete rewrite, I think, and I don't see that being justified in this case. Byrgenwulf 11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the "common name" for a doctrine that has many more implications than just the philosophical ones. It is not just a "slogan", just like "Do No Harm" is not just a slogan, but a slogan representing a doctrine. Should we refer to Sergey Nechayev in the article Consequentialism? I don't think much of him as a philosopher (and I guess he would have agreed, as he did not think much of philosophers in general but regarded himself highly). To me, consequentialism is armchair philosophy that can be used to lend a semblance of legitimacy to the practice of committing atrocities in name of the "higher good", which is what "the ends justify the means" is about. --Lambiam Talk 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what implications of an ethical doctrine would not be philosophical in nature, but I suppose this is the place to debate neither that nor whether the doctrine in question is about committing atrocities for a higher good (which I also dispute). I wouldn't call consequentialism "armchair philosophy", either, unless we are to write off such eminent thinkers as John Stuart Mill as mere "armchair philosophers".  I can grant that sermonising about the end justifying the means is armchair philosophy, however, and Wikipedia is not a place to play host to that, I don't believe.  The name for the concept, I maintain, is consequentialism: are we to have an article entitled "Always act in such a manner that bla bla bla" with a bit of vague rambling about Kant's ethics and then still have another, more scholarly one on the "categorical imperative"? A moral aphorism should not be the title of an article. Byrgenwulf 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As it currently stands, this article needs references (Kant would seem a good place to start) and a bit of a clean-up. As it stands, I'd vote for a redirect to Consequentialism, but you wouldn't need to do much work on the article to persuade me to alter this vote to "Keep".
 * Comment Kant believed that if the intention was good, the action was good. He didn't believe that the ends justified the means. Think consequentialism. -Royalguard11Talk 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that wasn't terribly clear, was it? I meant Kant more as someone who considered the argument but whose conclusion was that the end never justified the means - both sides should be referenced. Vizjim 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Consequentialism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 11:29Z 
 * Merge/redirect to consequentialism or keep, notable term of cultural impact, and can be much more than just a dictdef. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to consequentialism. -Royalguard11Talk 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to consequentialism. Pjrich 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Preferably keep, or else redirect to consequentialism. It would be a nice article if improved. Cheers, R  e  lentless  Rouge  22:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like a reasonably good phylosophical analysis. Many Wikipedia articles are much worse.  Barbara Shack 10:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge into consequentialism. Penelope D 21:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article could be better, but it is a notable term and warrants an entry. MorrisGregorian 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable phrase/idea, although the article needs a lot of work. --TM 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.