Does the end justify the means? - GRE issue essay.

I had a really hard time composing this within the stupid 45 min time limit. I hate time limits. Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback.

"If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable."

Whether the end justifies the means, is a debate we all have taken part in some point of our lives. In my opinion, we can only justify the means when they are morally, ethically, and socially upright.

People who go in pursuit of their dreams, more often than not, have to take the path which has more obstacles than others. When someone drops out of college to start a small business, we generally consider it as an act of lunacy. However, when that someone becomes a Bill Gates, we laud the decision. It just proves that it is not necessary to take the usual paths towards success. When success comes knocking, even the awkward decisions look coherent. But in this case, the goals are achieved through hard work or innovation, so the means can be easily defended.

For many people, the goal in life is to earn money at any cost. The match fixing scandals in cricket and football that have surfaced recently point out this phenomenon. Here we see sportsmen losing on purpose to earn some extra money. Thus, the goal is to earn money, but the method is illegal. Moreover, it brings disrepute to the sport, and the fans and spectators find it hard to trust the players in any future games.

Likewise, if a student cheats in the entrance examination to get a seat in a medical college, we cannot condone it. In this case, that particular student will attain her goal, but she may not become a competent doctor. She may put the lives of her future patients at risk. The greater good is more important than the goals of a particular person.

The most blatant example of such indiscretion is the attitude of the terrorists. Their goal of waging jihad does not justify their acts of killing innocent people or violating human rights. Similarly, we cannot rationalize the declaration of war on a country to rid it of an oppressive regime without any regard to the collateral damage it can cause.

In conclusion, the methods which violate our sense of righteousness and morals, cannot validate the goal, however worthy it may be. After all, our values are what make us humans.

Yes! I totally agree! The quote is a bit extreme, if you ask me.


May I suggest a slight rewording? To me, this sentence feels a little awkward:
"In pursuing their dreams, people, more often than not, choose paths with much obstacles."
When you say "than others," what is the other path?
I think this sentence should say something more like: people choose unorthodox paths to achieve success... or something similar because the rest of the paragraph, you talk about the possibility of the successfulness of the "awkward decisions."

Sorry - I have to go now - I'll get back to this as soon as I can.

Here, I don't know if losing on purpose is illegal, but it is definitely immoral. Bringing your other teammates down just for money is almost definitely wrong.


I think you should add a smoother transition between the second and third paragraph. In the second one, you are talking about the good points of achieving goals through any means, but in the third you abruptly introduce the dark side of the quote. When you said, "for many people, the goal is to earn money," I didn't expect you to completely turn it around and add a dark, evil connotation to earning money. You should ease it in, saying something about how earning money illegally is immoral in the first sentence.

Otherwise, I think you organized the rest of your thoughts pretty well. 45 minutes is definitely not enough time to ponder and organize your thoughts effectively, but you're pretty good at it. (I was never good at the SAT essays ><)

Thanks Eugene!


Err...right. Note taken :)


I knew that would come up. The third paragraph comes with jolt, doesn't it? I knew that from the start. I didn't get the time to write a proper transition.

Anyway, did I defend my stand properly?


Haha...thanks. By the way, this is a GRE essay.

Oh. Right! :] But I guess SAT is sort of similar... except we have a WHOPPING 25 minutes to write an essay -.-

No comma necessary in that first sentence.

This question is about whether a moral end justifies immoral methods. Is it moral to assassinate an evil leader who is going to commit genocide? Is it moral to tell a lie in order to help someone avoid emotional pain? Is it okay to cheat in order to win a position of influence so that you can use that influence to benefit people?

This is a question about utilitarian ethics vs. absolutism (i.e. Mill vs. Kant), one of my favorite subjects.

So... you wrote very well, but the point is about this question of whether it is okay to act in an immoral way to achieve a greater good.