If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable.
sThe recommendation that if the goal is worthy then any means can be taken to attain it is an allusion to the Machiavellian principle ‘Ends Justify Means’. This proposition poses a serious question to our conscience to ponder upon: Shall we resort to any means whether ethical or unethical to attain our goals - that appear worthy to, at least, us - without any consideration of the consequences they may bring to the society or the people? For a rational mind, the answer would definitely be a ‘No’.
Firstly, the premise of the statement about the worthiness of a goal is subjective. It varies from one individual to the other as to what constitutes a worthy goal. For a student it might be to become a scientist whereas for a novice drug dealer it could be to lead the world’s biggest drug cartel. Secondly, when an aspirant is overwhelmed by the worthiness of the objective being pursued, he or she might adopt unfair means to easily achieve that objective. For example, a student appearing in a highly competitive exam whose result is worth his career might resort to cheating to pass it. Such a success through transgression might fetch some immediate recognition from the physical world, but the person is deemed a loser by the inner conscience. He or she may never realize self-worth and self-respect for the rest of the life which is a far bigger loss than losing the goal itself.
Thirdly, the proposition completely disregard the damage that adopting unsuitable means could inflict on the society or the people. For example, for any Government, attaining United Nation’s goals of sustainable development is paramount for the well-being of the immediate as well as next generations. But, clamping down on factories and industries left and right to reduce pollution – thereby simultaneously stripping the poor masses of their livelihood and pushing the country into an economic crisis – can never be a feasible way. Or consider the case of Mexican General Poncho Villa for whom giving away corn and cattle to the destitute in charity was a worthy objective. But the adopted mean of looting, torturing and killing the affluent people can never be justified. Then, there may be instances when all the three shortcomings that the statement fails to address concur at the same time, that is, an unethical goal perceived worthy by a criminal is pursued through inhuman means causing much destruction to the society. This was the case with the Mongol emperor Genghiz Khan for whom the goal of achieving ascendancy of the Mongolian race over the Asian subcontinent was worth the genocide of several million innocents.
However, one must always weigh the benefits of achieving a goal or the harms in case of failure for the same against the consequences of the means adopted. If the former indeed outweighs the latter, then the proposition is appropriate. For example, war can never be considered a benign way of achieving an objective. Yet during the Second World War, the aim of attaining World Peace and saving millions of Jewish Lives warranted the military confrontations with Hitler. Similarly, imposition of a curfew or restrictions on free movement is not good for a democratic state. Yet during a terrorist attack or a national emergency, such a step is indispensable for the overall security and well-being of the nation and its people.
In conclusion, the recommendation fails to address the subjectivity of the worthiness of any goal as well as the undesirable consequences that adopting unsuitable means can bring to the person in pursuit of a goal or people around him or her. Still, there can be instances when taking undesirable means is justified if the harms of the resulting consequences are outweighed by the benefits of attaining the goal or the cost of losing it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: SThe
sThe recommendation that if the goal is wort...
^^^^
Line 1, column 504, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...al mind, the answer would definitely be a 'No'. Firstly, the premi...
^
Line 19, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g the goal or the cost of losing it.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, well, whereas, as for, as to, at least, for example, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3211.0 2235.4752809 144% => OK
No of words: 634.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06466876972 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01790360848 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00445121237 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 320.0 215.323595506 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504731861199 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 993.6 704.065955056 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.1193277271 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.44 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.36 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.16 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230602167539 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0658265937945 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0800093471354 0.0758088955206 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155895943607 0.150359130593 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0855651087848 0.0667264976115 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 173.0 100.480337079 172% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.