Do they?
Do the ends justify the means?
- Thread starter Mr Radioactive
- Start date
Sometimes
If you think sometimes, then surely you just mean - yes.
It seems its just a matter of wanting something enough.
It seems its just a matter of wanting something enough.
Of course the ends can justify the means. If your end goal is getting an apple and your means is going to the supermarket and buying it, then the ends justifies the means.
But the question is usually asked in reference to doing something immoral or illegal or contradictory to one's one moral code in order to achieve something that is supposedly so important that it must be done at any cost. For example, if the end goal is to defend freedom and equality in America, is it justified to ban the Nazi party? In that sense, the answer is no-- the ends cannot justify the means, because the means are the ends.
But the question is usually asked in reference to doing something immoral or illegal or contradictory to one's one moral code in order to achieve something that is supposedly so important that it must be done at any cost. For example, if the end goal is to defend freedom and equality in America, is it justified to ban the Nazi party? In that sense, the answer is no-- the ends cannot justify the means, because the means are the ends.
Until they hit the point of diminishing returns.
Yeah, I suppose, but that doesn't make it right.
I mean, if I'm waiting in line at the movies, and I really really want to get to the front of the line, I can't just murder everybody in front of me to get there.
There are limits.
If you've got to ask the question, the answer is probably "no."
I always thought the means does not justify what you get in the end until I read a story from India. They caught 3 suspected Pakistani terrorists. None would talk to the police. They pulled a gun and blew one guys head off. The other two sang like canaries. They found the bomb about 10 minutes before it went off in a packed train station and diffused it.
Now, I don't know.
Now, I don't know.
Teh Baba?
No.
Next question?
Next question?
I think you are making this up.
Never?
Yes.
I was hoping for a thorough discussion of utilitarianism (yes, there's an entire philosophical school of thought on this subject), but I'm only seeing two word replies. I'm a little disappointed. If all you can say is "no" to the OP, then you haven't really considered the philosophy. The thing about utilitarianism, is that YOU can define what the ends are, and only then if the means justify the cost.
Is it right to kill a man to save another man? You can decide the standard. Maybe the guy that dies never really contributed to society, while the other man supports a family. Social utility defines the worth of a life, Maybe you're actually saving two people (or more). Quantity of life is paramount. Maybe it's never justified to trade a life for another, and the only ethical solution is to find a way to save both men.
Neat thing about philosophy, is that the answer is only as correct as it is consistent. If you have a consistent and logically coherent argument, it's a sound philosophy. So run with it. Just don't go straw man, or slippery slope and extend it to some ridiculous extent.
Is it right to kill a man to save another man? You can decide the standard. Maybe the guy that dies never really contributed to society, while the other man supports a family. Social utility defines the worth of a life, Maybe you're actually saving two people (or more). Quantity of life is paramount. Maybe it's never justified to trade a life for another, and the only ethical solution is to find a way to save both men.
Neat thing about philosophy, is that the answer is only as correct as it is consistent. If you have a consistent and logically coherent argument, it's a sound philosophy. So run with it. Just don't go straw man, or slippery slope and extend it to some ridiculous extent.
Link?
Even if true, the cold blooded murder of suspects by police officers is never justified whatever the outcome. In that circumstance, the end did not justify the means. You ask how else would it have been stopped? It wouldn't. The attack isn't preventable by legal and moral means, then it isn't preventable. Becoming your enemy does not defeat him.
