Robert Hass Quotes

What would our world be like if we ceased to worry about 'right' and 'wrong,' or 'good' and 'evil,' and simply acted so as to maximize well-being, our own and that of others? Would we lose anything important?

We ought to see clearly that the end does justify the means

If the ends don't justify the means, what does?

The end justifies the means only when the means used are such as actually bring about the desired and desirable end.

Immoral: Inexpedient. Whatever in the long run and with regard to the greater number of instances men find to be generally inexpedient comes to be considered wrong, wicked, immoral. If mans notions of right and wrong have any other basis than this of expediency; if they originated, or could have originated, in any other way; if actions have in themselves a moral character apart from and nowise dependent on, their consequences-then all philosophy is a lie and reason a disorder of the mind.

Good and evil exist only in terms of the happiness or suffering they create in ourselves and others

I think in general the ends do not justify the means.

And don't tell me the end justifies the means because it doesn't. We never reach the end. All we ever get is means. That's what we live with.

The end never justifies the means because there is no end; there are only means.

I wanted to play around with the format, really tear it to pieces and shake it up. For example, if Mitch saves someone from drowning, and that person then goes out and releases a virus that kills a million people. Imagine the moral implications of that.

They tend to be pretty abstract ones then, like doing what will have the best consequences; obviously you wouldn't specify what consequences are best, they may be different in some circumstances, so at a lower, more specific level, you may well get differences.

Whoever does not philosophize for the sake of philosophy, but rather uses philosophy as a means, is a sophist.

The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.

If the end does not justify the means - what can?

The ideologue says “whatever is right works.” The pragmatist says “whatever works is right.”

To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles.

Even for the world's only superpower, the ends don't always justify the means.

Science, by itself, cannot supply us with an ethic. It can show us how to achieve a given end, and it may show us that some ends cannot be achieved. But among ends that can be achieved our choice must be decided by other than purely scientific considerations. If a man were to say, "I hate the human race, and I think it would be a good thing if it were exterminated," we could say, "Well, my dear sir, let us begin the process with you." But this is hardly argument, and no amount of science could prove such a man mistaken.

The attempt to remove evil from the world by killing a thousand evil - doers, only adds to the evil in the world.

One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.

But the nature of the universe is such that ends can never justify means. On the contrary, the means always determine the end.

For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.

Too great a preoccupation with motives (especially one's own motive) is liable to lead to too little concern for consequences.

Ethics is inescapable.

You can get away with anything as long as it works.