the most important categories of politics and political science, characterizing the organic relationship and interdependence between consciously chosen methods, methods, actions and the results obtained through this. Throughout the entire political history of mankind, the question of the relationship between ends and means has been in the center of attention of politicians - practitioners and theorists. Some schools and concepts were replaced by others, formulas and principles were put forward such as “to achieve the goal by any means” or “the end justifies the means”. However, the meaning of the real dependence existing here remained not open. Only in modern times, with the study of such theoretical problems as interest and idea, necessity and freedom, spontaneity and consciousness, did science and social science come to the heart of the matter. It turned out that each goal has a strictly defined arsenal of means, the use of which alone can lead to the chosen goal. Going beyond the means compatible with a given goal inevitably leads to the loss of the chosen goal itself, leads to unexpected results that are very different from the intended goal. The real mechanism of the influence of the means used on the progress towards the goal is due to the interdependence that exists between the genesis and the result, between the becoming and what has become. Everything that was in genesis is present as a result, in what has become there is only what was in the very formation, and not only the material composition itself, but also the means of its organization affect as a result: incorrectly performed melting, with all the good quality of raw materials, will not give the desired brand ... The specifics of the relationship between ends and means in social development became more and more clear: a means of change social conditions here are the people themselves, their actions, in the course of which the participants in the events themselves become different, and, as the young Marx noted, a worthy goal is achievable here only by worthy means. Noting the profound change in socio-economic conditions in the 19th century, K. Marx, M. Weber and E. Bernstein pointed to a fundamentally new role of consciousness, conscious actions in history: reason became the main condition for creating social wealth, science - a direct productive force. A situation arose when, as a result of unsuitable means - delusions, social psychosis, manipulation of the consciousness of the masses, as well as unforeseen consequences organized action- human civilization itself may be directly destroyed (in the event of a deliberately organized nuclear missile conflict, an explosion due to the negligence or incompetence of a number of nuclear power plants such as the Chernobyl one, as a result of the industrial destruction of the ozone layer around the Earth, or the foundations of human civilization may be destroyed ( ecological environment habitat, the hereditary foundations of the reproduction of the human race, the mechanisms of natural-historical progress, etc.). By virtue of this, all of humanity or a certain part of it, country, nation, people may find themselves in a socio-economic dead end or even a historical niche, to get out of which and return to common road such a country or such a people will no longer be able to progress. This can be avoided by correctly proportioning the means and the goal. Soviet society embarked on the post-October path in conditions when humanity was not yet aware of not only all, but even the main dangers that could become fatal during the transition to a phase of predominantly conscious evolution. Already within the framework of the policy of “war communism” of 1918-1921, when they tried to achieve the goal by any means, a “cavalry attack” was undertaken on capital, the first destructive attempt was made by inadequate means - “direct orders of the state” - to achieve the desired goal: “to establish a state production and state distribution of products in a communist way in a small-peasant country ”. (Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 44, p. 151). Life made me admit that this is a mistake. Awareness led to a decisive turn from "War Communism" to a "new economic policy”As an adequate means of advancing towards the socialist goal. But the assimilation of the lesson of history was not principled, but pragmatic: unrealistic "assault" means of achieving the socialist goal were replaced by mediating ones. The main thing was not understood: the presence of a deep, organic connection between the goal and the means of achieving it. This was a tremendous danger, for a period of real “overturning” of the ratio of goals and means in Soviet history... The essence of socialism is to put the working man at the center public life, satisfy his needs and interests, make him the master of life. But this requires certain preconditions: the level of development of the productive forces and the well-being of the population, the culture of working people, democratic traditions, etc. All this is ensured by a highly developed capitalist society. But if the transition to socialism begins in a country that is not highly developed, then the very creation of the aforementioned prerequisites or conditions, being in its essence a means or even a condition for the emancipation of a man of labor as a goal of socialism, practically becomes a goal for society for a more or less long time, or rather an intermediate goal. , without the achievement of which it is impossible to realize the main essential goal of socialism - to ensure the emancipation of the working man, the satisfaction of his needs and interests. So life itself “inverted” the essential connections between the end and the means, changed their places, gave means in the minds of people the aura of the goal, gave them a central place. While the Leninist guard was still alive, they tried to explain the essence of the matter. So, the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars A. Rykov said in 1929: "Questions concerning things and technical issues, quite rightly occupy a huge place in our life, but we must not forget that all this exists for people - for workers and peasants." The real reversal of the balance of ends and means of necessity was long-term. Relying on this objective-subjective premise, J. Stalin and his entourage made a second attempt to “build socialism at any cost”, embarking on a runaway path, began to profess and implement the formula “the end justifies the means,” which was an open justification of subjectivism and voluntarism, official agreement with the impatience of the masses, who, despite the conditions, wished real opportunities and the means to achieve the ultimate goal - socialism, to obtain the benefits associated with socialism, or rather, their propaganda image, because society did not yet have the means necessary for real socialism. So a monster society, or barracks pseudo-socialism, arose, swearing in its service to the working people, but which was in fact the realization of the social ideal of the party-state bureaucracy. Experience shows Soviet Union and not only him, if an attempt is made to build socialism at any cost and at the same time inhumane means incompatible with the nature of socialism are used, the goal will not be achieved. The use of means that are incompatible with the chosen goal changes the direction and nature of the development itself, and leads to very unexpected results. This is the whole perniciousness of inadequate means of solving revolutionary problems, achieving a socialist goal, the means that Stalinism, Maoism, polpotism, etc., imposed on society. They were destroying what was not meant to be destroyed and creating something different from what they promised. Purpose and means. But what, then, is the actual relationship between ethics and politics? Is there really nothing in common between them, as it was sometimes said? Or, on the contrary, should it be considered correct that “one and the same” ethics is valid for political action as well as for any other? It has sometimes been assumed that these are two completely alternative statements: either one is correct or the other. But is there any truth in the fact that at least some kind of ethics in the world could have put forward substantively identical commandments in relation to erotic and business, family and work relationships, relationships to a wife, greengrocer, son, competitors, friend, defendants? Should the ethical demands on politics really be so indifferent that it operates with a very specific means - power behind which is violence? How, apart from the personality of despots and dilettantism, is the difference between the rule of workers 'and soldiers' Soviets from the rule of any ruler of the old regime? What is the difference between the polemics of the majority of representatives of the supposedly new ethics against the opponents they criticize from the polemics of some other demagogues? Noble intentions! - the answer follows. Good. But after all, we are talking here about the means, and the nobility of the final intentions is exactly the same claim with complete subjective honesty and enemies hurt by the enmity. If the conclusion of the acosmic ethics of love reads: “Do not resist evil with violence,” then the exact opposite is valid for a politician: you must violently resist evil, otherwise you are responsible for the fact that evil prevails ... ethically oriented action can be subject to two fundamentally different, irreconcilably opposing maxims: it can be oriented either towards an "ethics of persuasion" or an "ethics of responsibility." But in the sense that the ethics of persuasion would be identical to irresponsibility, and the ethics of responsibility would be identical to unprincipledness. This, of course, is out of the question. But a deep opposition exists between whether convictions act according to the maxim of ethics - in the language of religions: “A Christian acts as he should, but in relation to the result he trusts in God” - or whether they act according to the maximum of responsibility: one must pay for the (foreseeable) consequences of one's actions ... The main means of politics is violence, and how important the tension between means and ends is from an ethical point of view, you can judge about this by the fact that this side (the revolutionary socialists - AB) morally rejects the “despotic politicians” of the old regime because of their use of the same means, however justified the abandonment of their aims may be. As far as the consecration of means by end is concerned, the ethics of persuasion in general seems to be falling apart. Of course, logically she only has the ability to reject any behavior that uses morally dangerous means. True, in the real world, we again and again come across examples when an ethicist of persuasion suddenly turns into a chiliastic prophet, as, for example, those who, while preaching “love against violence” at the next moment, call for violence - to the last violence that would lead to the abolition of all violence, just as our military men told the soldiers at every offensive: this offensive is the last, it will lead to victory and, consequently, to peace. The ethicist of persuasion cannot stand the ethical irrationality of the world. He is a cosmic-ethical “rationalist”. Of course, each of you who knows Dostoevsky remembers the scene with the Grand Inquisitor, where this problem is presented correctly. It is impossible to put one cap on the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility, or ethically decree which end should sanctify which means, if any concessions are made to this principle at all. The ancient problem of theodicy is precisely the question: why was this force, portrayed at the same time as omnipotent and good, was able to create such an irrational world of undeserved suffering, unpunished injustice and incorrigible stupidity? Either she is not one, or she is not another; or life is ruled by completely different principles of compensation and reward, such that we can interpret metaphysically, or those that will forever be inaccessible to our interpretation. The problem of the experience of the irrationality of the world was driving force any religious development. Indian doctrine of karma and Persian dualism, original sin , predestination and Deus absconditus all grew out of this experience. And the first Christians knew very well that the world was ruled by demons, that the one who associates with politics, that is, with power and violence as means, makes a pact with devilish forces and that in relation to his action it is not true that good can follow only good, and out of evil only evil, but often the other way around. Whoever does not see this is politically really a child. Thus, the problem of political ethics is by no means raised by the modern disbelief born of the Renaissance cult of heroes. All religions have fought this problem with the most varied success, and because it was said, it could not be otherwise. It is the specific means of legitimate violence exclusively as such in the hands of human unions that determines the peculiarity of all ethical problems of politics. Whoever, for whatever purposes, blocks himself with the indicated means - and every politician does this - is also subject to its specific consequences. The fighter for the faith, both religious and revolutionary, is particularly susceptible to them. Let's take an open-minded example of modernity. Anyone who wants to establish absolute justice on earth by force needs an entourage: a human "apparatus". He must promise him the necessary / internal and external / reward - heavenly or earthly bribes - otherwise the "apparatus" does not work. So, in the conditions of the modern class struggle, the internal reward is the quenching of hatred and the thirst for revenge, first of all: Ressentimenta and the need for a pseudo-ethical feeling of unconditional rightness, vilification and blasphemy of opponents ... warm places. Anyone who wants to engage in politics in general and make it their only profession must be aware of these ethical paradoxes and their responsibility for what comes out of themselves under their influence. He, I repeat, is entangled with the devilish forces that watch over him with every act of violence. The great virtuosos of acosmic love for man and kindness, whether they come from Nazareth, from Assisi or from Indian royal castles, did not “work” with a political means - violence, their kingdom was “out of this world”, and yet they acted and acted in this world, and the figures of Platon Karataev and the saints of Dostoevsky are still the most adequate constructions in their image and likeness. He who seeks the salvation of his soul and other souls is not looking for it on the path of politics, which has completely different tasks - those that can be solved only with the help of violence. The genius or demon of politics lives in internal tension with the god of love, including the Christian God in his church manifestation - tension that can burst into irreconcilable conflict at any moment.In fact: politics is done, it is true with the head, but, of course, not only head. The beliefs professing ethics are absolutely right here. But whether it should act as an ethic of persuasion or as an ethic of responsibility, and when so, and when otherwise, this cannot be prescribed to anyone. Politics is powerful slow drilling in hard formations, carried out simultaneously with passion and a cold eye. The idea is, in general, correct, and all historical experience confirms that the possible could not have been achieved if the world did not reach for the impossible over and over again. But the one who is capable of this must be a leader; moreover, he must also be - in the simplest sense of the word - a hero. And even those who are neither the one nor the other must arm themselves with that firmness of spirit that will not be broken even by the collapse of all hopes; already now they must arm themselves with it, for otherwise they will not be able to carry out even what is possible now. Only the one who is sure that he will not flinch if, from his point of view, the world turns out to be too stupid or too mean for what he wants to offer him; only the one who, in spite of everything, is able to say “and all the same!” - only he has a “professional vocation” for politics.

The question of the goal and the means of achieving it has worried mankind since ancient times. Many writers, philosophers and public figures have pondered over it and brought up historical, life and literary arguments to prove their point. In the Russian classics, too, there were many answers and examples, proving, as a rule, the assertion that the paths of achievement must correspond in everything to what needs to be achieved, otherwise it loses all meaning. In this collection, we have listed the most striking and illustrative examples from Russian literature for the final essay in the direction "Aims and Means".

1. In Pushkin's novel " Captain's daughter» the main character always chose the right paths to achieve goals, however, no less noble. Thanks to this, Grinev turns from an ignorant noble dullard into an officer, sincere, ready to sacrifice his life in the name of duty. Having sworn allegiance to the empress, he honestly serves, defending the fortress, and even death at the hands of rebel robbers does not frighten him. Just as honestly, he sought Masha's favor, and achieved. The antipode of Peter Grinev in the novel - Shvabrin - on the contrary, uses any means to achieve the goal, choosing the most vile of them. Having embarked on the path of betrayal, he pursues personal gain, demands reciprocity from Masha, while not disdaining to vilify her in the eyes of Peter. In the choice of goals and means, Alexey is driven by mental cowardice and self-interest, because he is devoid of ideas about honor and conscience. Mary rejects him for this reason, because a good goal cannot be achieved by deception.
2. What should be the ultimate goal if cruelty, deceit and human lives are the means to achieve it? In the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time" Grigory Pechorin's goals are momentary, embodied in the desire for second victories, for which he chooses difficult and sometimes cruel means. Hidden in his victories is a persistent search for the meaning of life, which the hero cannot find. In this search, he destroys not only himself, but also everyone who surrounds him - Princess Mary, Bela, Grushnitsky. To revive his own soul, he plays with the feelings of others, unwittingly becoming the cause of their misfortunes. But in the game with his own life, Grigory hopelessly loses, loses those few people who were dear to him. “I realized that chasing lost happiness is reckless,” he says, and the goal to achieve which so much energy and other people's grief is put in turns out to be illusory and unattainable.
3. In the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" the society in which Chatsky is forced to be, lives according to market laws, where everything is bought and sold, and a person is valuable not for his spiritual qualities, but for the size of his wallet and success in his career. Nobility and duty are here nothing in front of the importance of rank and title. That is why Alexander Chatsky turns out to be misunderstood and rejected in a circle where mercantile goals dominate, justifying any means.
   He enters into a struggle with the Famus society, challenges Molchalin, who goes to deception and hypocrisy in order to get a high position. Even in love, Alexander turns out to be a loser, because he does not defile the goal with vile means, refuses to squeeze the breadth and nobility of his heart into the narrow framework of generally accepted and vulgar concepts with which Famusov's house is replete.
4. A person is valuable for his deeds. But not always his deeds, even if subordinate to a high goal, turn out to be good. In the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" Rodion Raskolnikov decides for himself an important question from the point of view of morality: does the end justify the means? Can he, according to his theory, dispose of people's lives at his own discretion?
   The answer lies in the title of the novel: Raskolnikov's mental anguish, after the atrocity he committed, prove that his calculation was wrong, and the theory was wrong. The goal, which is based on unrighteous and inhuman means, is devalued by itself, becomes a crime for which sooner or later will have to be punished.
5. In the novel by M.A. Sholokhov's "Quiet Don" the fate of the heroes was swept away by the revolutionary elements. Grigory Melekhov, who sincerely believes in a happy and wonderful communist future, is ready to give his life for the well-being and prosperity of his native land... But in the context of life, bright revolutionary ideas turn out to be ineffective, dead. Gregory understands that the struggle between the whites and the reds, which seemingly aims at a “wonderful tomorrow,” in fact, is violence and reprisals against the helpless and dissent. Brilliant slogans turn out to be a deception, and the cruelty and arbitrariness of the means are hidden behind the lofty goal. The nobility of his soul does not allow him to come to terms with the evil and injustice that he observes around. Tormented by doubts and contradictions, Gregory is trying to find the only correct path that will allow him to live honestly. He is unable to justify the numerous murders committed in the name of a ghostly idea, in which he no longer believes.
6. A. Solzhenitsyn's novel "The Gulag Archipelago" is a study related to the political history of the USSR, according to Solzhenitsyn, "an experience of artistic research", in which the author analyzes the history of the country - a utopia that erects an ideal world on the rubble of human lives, numerous victims and lies disguised for humane purposes. The price for the illusion of happiness and peace, in which there is no place for individuality and dissent, is too high. The problematic of the novel is diverse, since it includes many questions of a moral nature: is it possible to justify evil in the name of good? What do victims and their executioners have in common? Who is responsible for mistakes made? Supported by rich biographical, research material, the book leads the reader to the problem of ends and means, convincing him that one does not justify the other.
7. A person is inherent in the search for happiness, as the main meaning of life, its highest goal. For her sake, he is ready to use any means, but he does not understand that this is unnecessary. The main character of the story V.M. Shukshin's "Boots" - to Sergei Dukhanin - manifestations of tender feelings are by no means easy, because he is not used to unjustified tenderness and is even ashamed of it. But the desire to please his loved one, the desire for happiness, pushes him to a big waste. The money spent on the purchase of an expensive gift turns out to be an unnecessary sacrifice, because his wife only needed attention. Generosity and the desire to give warmth and care fill the hero's somewhat hardened, but still sensitive soul with happiness, which, as it turned out, is not so difficult to find.
8. In the novel by V.A. Kaverin "Two Captains" the problem of ends and means is revealed in the confrontation between two characters - Sanya and Camomile. Each of them is driven by their own goals, each decides what is really important to him. In search of solutions, their paths diverge, fate confronts them in a duel that determines the moral guidelines of each, proves the noble strength of one, and the vile baseness of the other. Sanya is driven by honest sincere aspirations, he is ready for a difficult but direct path to find out the truth and prove it to others. Chamomile pursues small goals, achieving them in no less small ways: lies, betrayal and hypocrisy. Each of them is going through a painful problem of choice, in which it is so easy to lose yourself and those you truly love.
9. A person is not always clearly aware of his goal. In Roman L.N. Tolstoy's "War and Peace" Andrei Bolkonsky is in search of himself and his place in life. His shaky life guidelines are influenced by fashion, society, the opinion of friends and relatives. He raves about fame and military exploits, dreams of making a career in the service, but not just reaching high ranks, but gaining the eternal glory of a winner and a hero. He goes to war, the cruelty and horrors of which instantly showed him all the absurdity and illusion of his dreams. He is not ready, like Napoleon, to go to glory on the bones of soldiers. The desire to live and make the life of other people wonderful set new goals for Bolkonsky. Meeting with Natasha instills love in his soul. However, in a moment that requires stamina and understanding from him, he gives up under the weight of circumstances and refuses his love. He is again tormented by doubts about the correctness of his own goals, and only before his death, Andrei realizes that the best moments of life, its great gifts are contained in love, forgiveness and compassion.
10. Character makes a person. He defines it life goals and landmarks. In "Letters of Good and Beautiful" D.S. Likhachev, the problem of the goal and the means of achieving it is considered by the author as one of the most important, forming in the young reader the concept of honor, duty, truth. “The end justifies the means” is a formula that is unacceptable to the author. On the contrary, every person should have a goal in life, but the methods that he uses to achieve what he want are no less important. In order to be happy and in harmony with your own conscience, you must make a choice in favor of spiritual values, giving preference to good deeds and wonderful thoughts.

PURPOSE AND MEANS

Lit .: Hegel G. V. F. Philosophy of law. M., 1990, p. 189-190; Aims and means [a selection of works by L. D. Trotsky, J. Dewey, J. P. Sartre, comments by A.A. Huseynov] .- In collection: Ethical. Scientific and journalistic readings. M-, 1992, p. 212-285; HabermasJ. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambr. 1990.

R. G. Apresyan

New philosophical encyclopedia: In 4 volumes. M .: Thought. Edited by V.S.Stepin. 2001 .

See what "PURPOSE AND MEANS" is in other dictionaries:

- “The end justifies the means” is a catch phrase originally owned by Niccolo Machiavelli, Il fine giustifica i mezzi. This expression is found in a number of authors: The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 1679) The German theologian Hermann ... Wikipedia

From Latin: Finis sanctificat media. Traditionally, it is believed that these words belong to the famous Italian thinker, historian and statesman Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), author of the famous ... ... Dictionary of winged words and expressions

To whom the goal is permitted, the means are also permitted. Hermann Busenbaum, Jesuit At least once to start with the means to justify the ends! Karol Izhikovsky Does a person use a method or a method uses a person? Slawomir Mrozhek Having achieved the goal, ... ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

Essay in the direction "Goals and means".

The statement given to me is quite contradictory and ambiguous, like any other question that involves a long discussion. Does the end always justify the means? And does it justify at all? Should one correspond to the other, and what should the end be for all means to be good for it?

On the one hand, a person's entire life is a movement with a goal, in most cases it is taken for the “meaning of life”. Home, family, good job, car, apartment, garden with gooseberries, your own small business, world peace - all this can become the raison d'être of everyone. Is there any point in thinking about the means to achieve your goal? Of course, yes, because in our life any obsessive thought can break on reality and the very fact that a person is constantly changing, growing up and improving. And if today, for example, it seems to me that for the sake of life in the capital it is worth going over the head, then tomorrow, it is quite possible, I will kiss the hands of my grandmother in a small village on the very outskirts of our country, strive for something completely different and condemn yourself for what you have done earlier. For example, the protagonist of F.M. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" for a long time considered it his goal to prove to himself and to those around him that with the help of evil deeds one can come to good. In other words, he believed that criminal means were permissible in achieving a noble goal. According to Raskolnikov's theory, there were two types of people: worthy and unworthy of life, and the hero believed that by killing the latter, an ideal, kind world could be created. However, having committed the murder of the old woman, the hero realized that his idea was inhuman, and he himself, having taken this step, did not become better than those scoundrels who surrounded him. These included, for example, Svidrigailov, a vile and low personality who did not disdain by any means in order to achieve his dirty goals. Raskolnikov's remorse and Svidrigailov's suicide once again proved that the end does not always justify the means.

Another example is the hero of the novel by N.V. Gogol " Dead Souls". Chichikov's goal was high social status and self-enrichment. The hero decided to take a rather desperate step: having bought out many "dead souls" from various landowners, he would easily simultaneously acquire the status of a large landowner, and, having received a large loan under his peasants, the hero would also have the opportunity to possess large capital. To this end, Chichikov began his difficult path and resorted to a variety of means, but the character of the hero did not allow him to sink too low and behave, for example, just like those landowners to whom he addressed with his deal. Of course, the final ending of the novel remained in the second volume, however, as it seems to me, the fact that Chichikov, having managed to find an approach to each landowner, still achieved his goal and collected the right amount dead souls, while not having done anything for which he himself could be ashamed. Thus, Chichikov's goal justified the means attached to it.

In conclusion, I would like to note once again that there is not and cannot be a specific answer to the question posed in the test. The end can justify the means only if the honor and dignity of the person are not affected.

September 13th, 2017 risusan7

Friends, getting acquainted with examples of essays, remember that their author is a person who also tends to make mistakes. Do not write off these works, as you will get a "failure" due to non-fulfillment of requirement number 2:

"Independence of writing the final essay (presentation)"
The final essay is performed independently. Copying of an essay (fragments of an essay) from any source is not allowed or reproduction from memory of someone else's text (work of another participant, text published in paper and (or) electronic form, etc.). "

Throughout his life, a person sets goals for himself, small and large, high and mundane, feasible and impossible ... Behind each of our meaningful actions there is an intention, and the road to it is lined with means to achieve a result. What is the relationship between end and means?

I think Aldous Huxley was right. The fact that “the means determine the nature of the end” has been proved more than once by history. World wars, genocide, bloody revolutions have always been covered with good intentions. Enlightenment comes later, when the means become apparent: ruined destinies and mass loss of life.

Literature has given us many examples of how an immoral goal is exposed by means of achieving it. So, in the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky convincingly shows how cruelly the protagonist was mistaken, who believed that great personalities who move progress are allowed to commit monstrous crimes for good. Raskolnikov tests the theory by committing the murder of a greedy old woman borrower. The bloody massacre, the victim of which is not only the "insignificant, evil, sick old woman", but also the quiet and kind Lizaveta, does not make the world a better place. Rodion did not bless humanity, but only multiplied the evil of this world.

The true nature of the goal is determined through the means and in the story of A.P. Chekhov. Nikolai Ivanovich dreamed for a long time of his own estate with gooseberry bushes. Not the most lofty goal, but there is nothing wrong with it, at first glance. Chimsha-Himalayan persistently achieved his goal, using all available funds... He "was undernourished, underdrinked, dressed God knows how, like a beggar, and saved everything and put it in the bank." Even Nikolai Ivanovich did not regret his wife, "kept her from hand to mouth," which is why she died. Yes, man has found happiness, but can there be a good goal, for the sake of which human life was ruined?