Niccolo Machiavelli is one of the important political and philosophical thinkers known to many of us. Machiavelli is best known for the phrase “the end justifies the means,” which is continually a topic of controversy in discussions and speeches today (Robertson, 2012). With this doctrine, individuals are now confronted with several questions: can the desired end be justified by the means adopted to achieve it? However, most people deny that there is any problem or implication, especially when unworthy means are employed to achieve a good end (Livingstone, 2011). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay However, if the result is commendable, then the means used by a person to achieve his goal is justifiable provided that the results and means used are decent. and good (McGraw, 2003). Therefore, this article seeks to analyze the expression “the end justifies the means” and consequently to highlight the consequences that can arise from respecting or not respecting this political axiom. Answering the fundamental question of whether the end is justified by the means used to achieve the goal The outcome depends on the end a person wishes to achieve and the means they use (McGraw, 2003). If the means employed and the result were noble and honest, then the question would have been answered. The justification for the result is determined by the means used. So this is the position I chose to take. Nevertheless, to the extent that there are many views regarding the meaning of the doctrine “the end justifies the means,” I agree with the belief that the end and the means adopted must be noble. However, people misuse this phrase in an attempt to justify their own goals, despite the immoral means used to achieve them (Robertson, 2012). Most people focus more on what they want to achieve, but pay little attention to how to get there. justify their ends by doing the wrong thing and trying to achieve a positive outcome (Bartlett, 2013). So, they defend their immoral actions by pointing out the outcome that was good. Immoral justification is demonstrated in several historical events such as the bombings of the World Trade Center and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, World Wars 1 and 2, and the Holocaust. Many justifications have been put forward by many people regarding the endings of these events and, by extension, the balance between war and peace, but one thing that is true is that the endings were noble. However, the means were not (McGraw, 2003). To make comparisons between what is considered wrong and what is morally right, here is an example to clarify both. For example, a person may lie about their qualifications on their resume when trying to get a better job. The person may justify their actions by saying that the lie was to help them receive a huge salary to help them provide for their family more effectively. Another example is the justification of an abortion to save the mother's life. Both cases create a dilemma when trying to establish the authenticity of what was done and what should have been done (Bartlett, 2013). Regardless, there are consequences to following this political axiom. Based on these examples, taking the life of an innocent child and lying are both considered equally wrong. On the contrary, the end of effectively providing for the needs of one's family and.