Niccolò Machiavelli is one of the most significant political and philosophical thinkers known to many of us. Machiavelli is best known for the phrase “the ends justify the means” which has continually been a point of contention in today's discussions and discourses (Robertson, 2012). With this doctrine, individuals are now faced with several questions relating to whether or not they can justify the desired end with the means adopted to achieve it. However, most people deny that there are no problems or implications, especially when unworthy means are employed to achieve a good end (Livingstone, 2011). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, if the result is commendable, then whatever means a person uses to achieve the goal is justifiable provided that both the results and the means used are decent and good (McGraw, 2003). Therefore, this article seeks to analyze the phrase "the ends justify the means" and consequently highlight the consequences that can arise from following or not following this political axiom. Answering the fundamental question of whether the end is justified by the means used to achieve the goal, the result depends on the end a person wants to achieve and the means he uses (McGraw, 2003). If both the means employed and the result were noble and righteous, then the question would have been answered. The justification of the result is determined by the means used. So this is the position I have chosen to take. However, to the extent that there are numerous opinions regarding the meaning of the doctrine "the ends justify the means", I agree with the belief that the end and means adopted should be noble. However, people overuse the phrase in an attempt to justify their goals despite the immoral means used to achieve them (Robertson, 2012). Most people focus more on what they want to achieve, but pay little attention to what means they use to achieve. justify one's ends when one does a wrong thing and tries to achieve a positive outcome (Bartlett, 2013). Therefore, they defend their unethical behavior by pointing to the positive outcome. Immoral justification is demonstrated in several historical events such as the bombing of the World Trade Center and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, World Wars I and II, and the Holocaust. Many people have given many justifications regarding the purposes of these events and, by extension, the valuing of war over peace, but one thing that is true is that the purposes were noble. However, the means were not there (McGraw, 2003). To make comparisons regarding what is considered wrong and morally right, here is an example to clarify the two. For example, a person may lie about their credentials on their resume in an attempt to get a better job. The person may justify his actions by saying that the lie was intended to help him receive a huge salary to help him provide for his family more effectively. Another example is justifying an abortion to save the mother's life. Both cases create a dilemma in trying to establish the authenticity of what was done and what should have been done (Bartlett, 2013). In any case, following this political axiom has consequences. According to these examples, taking the life of an innocent child and lying are both considered equally wrong. In contrast, the goals of effectively providing for one's family and saving one's mother's life are both morally right. However, it is essential for an individual to learn and be able to.