The end justifies the means.

When we talk about non-consequentialist theory, somehow we will find these words. “The end justifies the means” or in Malay word. We can say it as “Matlamat/Hasil menghalalkan Cara”. It was a big hit to my mind. Should it plant it in my mind? Hehe.. The question is there. Before this, I always heard about this words “ The end not justifies the means” or “ Hasil tidak menghalalkan cara”. But to be non-consequentialist, I’ve got to understand that the consequence is not concern in deontological theory.

Yeah… we have three indexes to measure the different between Teleological theory and Deontological theory. Firstly is the MOTIVE, deontological must have a right motive or intentions and also must have a right act or conduct. That was second index that’s ACT. So, deontological concern Motive and Act, they must be positive and we consider them as morally okay. The third index CONSEQUENCE is not considered in this theory.

As an example, when we give our children a money to buy a text book, there are many consequences will appear. If our children got the money and the he buy a book. There is no problem with that, but if he didn’t buy a book but buy a cigarette instead. Is this considered morally? Hehehee the question is there. To be non-consequentialist, the parents are considering morally because according to non-consequentialist theory, the consequences doesn’t enter into judgment. Yes, the parent have a right Motive or Intention to give a money to their child to buy a book, the parent also do a right Act by giving the money. This is considering morally by non-consequentialist.

As a Muslims, do we agree with this theory? Yup, certain part I’m agreeing with that. But I’m just a student of ethical class. I’m must study it… Or I got fail in the exam.. huhuu
Need to remember.

Philosophy, consist of three major area.

1) Epistemology
2) Metaphysics
3) Ethics