Introduction
The question of whether the ends justify the means is crucial in many fields of human life. There are many examples when the answer is ‘no’; for instance, limiting people’s freedoms is terrible in most cases, regardless of the ideas for which it is done. In scholarly research, however, the situation is different: the ends are the valuable information that cannot be obtained without the investigation, while the means are the research conditions that can be adjusted. Taking this into account, and as scientific experiments solve many human problems and provide valuable insights, the position is that their ends justify their means.
Position
The principle that the ends justify the means can be used unethically. For example, during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, many governments implemented various electronic control systems to ensure people’s safety, but these measures severely limited their privacy (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte & Aroles, 2020). It is an example of a life situation where the ends justify the means. However, the case is highly controversial as it is unlikely that people will consent to such limitations.
While the ends cannot justify the means in life in general, this position is true in the context of scholarly research. New scientific concepts and ideas are created during experiments and hypothesis testing. It differs from ordinary life, as all research situations can be artificially modeled and conducted with the consent of all its participants. According to Doherty and Wolak (2011), people tend to justify the means if the situation is perceived as fair, based on its facts, and the results are valuable.
Scientific experiments are fair, transparent, clear, and concise, and their results undoubtedly benefit humanity by providing tools to change reality and improve people’s lives. Therefore, the position is that, in scientific research, the ends justify the means. Even controversial experiments can be beneficial when conducted in accordance with research ethics.
Why the Position Is True for Scholarly Research
Initially, research participation is entirely voluntary, and no one can compel others to participate if they do not wish to. When governments attempt to impose total control, as in the case of the pandemic, they often do not solicit the opinions of all citizens, using the pandemic to justify all measures (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte & Aroles, 2020). During scientific experiments, all participants voluntarily accept their roles and are informed of all potential risks and outcomes.
There are notable experiments, such as Zimbardo’s prison experiment and Milgram’s obedience experiment, which will be discussed below (Doliński et al., 2017). In both of them, one group of people used violence against another to understand the nature of violence. However, all participants knew what they were getting into, and it was their responsibility, so it cannot be considered unethical, as their will was not violated.
Secondly, scientific experiments are clear, concise, and transparent, as required by scientific ethics and necessary for precise, valuable results. Case fairness means that all facts are open and unbiased by ideology or opinion, and that all situational rules are clearly defined and followed (Doherty & Wolak, 2011). All of the above is true for scientific experiments, which should be unbiased and conducted according to clear rules to produce meaningful results. As they are fair and can be adjusted, their ends justify their means, as all harm that the experiment can cause can be minimized.
Thirdly, scientific studies aim to obtain new information, which is valuable to humanity in general. Therefore, their ends are much more precious than abstract ideas, which can be used to justify controversial actions such as total control over the population. The obedience experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, as described below, is a notable example of such research, providing valuable insights into why people can commit atrocities (Doliński et al., 2017).
Although violence occurred during the experiment, it provided valuable insights into the nature of obedience, insights that can be used to prevent atrocities in politics and business. As mentioned, all participants were informed, and participation was voluntary. Thus, as their results are valuable, their means justify their ends, which can be easily adjusted.
An Example: Milgram’s Study
Milgram’s research on obedience is a notable example of the idea that the ends justify the means in scientific work. During his social experiment, one group was forced to administer an electric shock of a specific voltage to another group, which constantly increased (Doliński et al., 2017). Some people played the role of authority figures for the first group, telling them they must do this. Results were hazardous: people could not resist the voice of authority and continued to cause pain to their victims, administering even deadly voltages. After the experiment, they reported wanting to stop but felt that something prevented them, since the authorities had instructed them to continue.
The reason why Milgram decided to conduct such a controversial experiment is that he wanted to understand why the Nazis committed their crimes on all levels, and no one managed to stop them. He wondered whether a virtually whole nation could lose its empathy and consciousness and start torturing and killing people (Doliński et al., 2017). The experiment demonstrated how difficult it can be to resist authority, even when it contradicts one’s inner voice, which tells them not to cause harm. Thus, while Milgram’s study was violent, as people risked obtaining electric shock injuries during the process, it gave humanity a critical insight into human nature.
Discussion
The claim that the end justifies the means is true for scientific experiments, as they possess three essential qualities: voluntariness, conciseness, transparency, and a high value placed on their results. As all participation is voluntary and the experiment can be easily adjusted, its means are controllable.
Additionally, its ends are precious, and Milgram’s experiment is a bright example. While it caused pain, it provided important insights into human perception of violence and authority. To summarize, in scientific experiments, the ends justify the means because the ends are of high value and the means are low in cost.
Conclusion
Science helps humanity understand the world, how it works, and how people can influence it. Participation in scientific experiments is voluntary; they are conducted in a clear, concise, and transparent manner, providing essential results that can improve the lives of all people. Milgram’s social experiment illustrates how people can commit atrocities under authority that commands them to do so, providing insight into how to prevent such aberrations in society. For these reasons, the belief that the ends justify the means can be applied to scientific research: their means can be adjusted to be as safe as possible, while their ends are highly valuable.
References
Doherty, D., & Wolak, J. (2011). When do the ends justify the means? Evaluating procedural fairness. Political Behavior, 34(2), 301–323.
Doliński, D., Grzyb, T., Folwarczny, M., Grzybała, P., Krzyszycha, K., Martynowska, K., & Trojanowski, J. (2017). Would you deliver an electric shock in 2015? Obedience in the experimental paradigm developed by Stanley Milgram in the 50 years following the original studies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 927–933.
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A., & Aroles, J. (2020). Does the end justify the means? Information systems and control society in the age of pandemics. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(6), 746–761.