Does the end justify the means?
Yes
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't know where to post it, 'cause i don't have my own straight opinion on this one. So i'll just clarify the question. Is it ok to kill 1 person to save 1.000.000 Is it ok to kill 10 to save 1.000.000 Is it ok to kill 100 to save 1.000.000 .... Is it ok to kill 100.000 to save 1.000.000 Where does the line between good and bad lay here? A guy that found and killed a serial killer or a serial raper so that he hurts no one. Some medician that was performing experiments on people and killed some, but developped a medicine that cures much more? Who are they badass mothafuckas or angels of mercy? Side: Yes
As gunman said, you need to look at cases individually. However, I feel that in most circumstances the end DOES justify the means. As Machiavelli argued, unjust men get farther along in the world than their just counterparts and cunning rulers benefit their subjects greatly. In today's convoluted world, this is necessary. Take murder for an example. Ethically, it's wrong to most people. Then was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? The majority of the civilians who died certainly did nothing to harm the United States. Yet their deaths provided a brutally effective means for the end of the war. Then take torture. If the US captures a terrorist, is it justified in violating his human rights and torturing him? After all, it's for the protection of the people. And now take lying. Say a spy is captured. The enemy asks him about government secrets. Can he lie to protect his country? Obviously, the answer can't simply be 'no.' Side: yes
|
This is one of those questions that has no real answer. You have to look at each case individually. Maybe it's ok to kill one person to save a million - Jack Bauer seems to do it every season. But killing 100 world leaders to save 101 third world farmers probably isn't worth it. Side: No
Except you just used "ends justifying the means" reasoning to reach that conclusion. The reason why killing 100 world leaders to save 101 farmers isn't worth it is because if 100 world leaders died, quite a few governments would go into chaos, many more would likely die, and so on. Refuse to save 101 third world farmers and you get 101 dead third world farmers. This would be tragic, yes, but not catastrophic. Thus weighing the possible means would justify not killing 100 world leaders. That is, it would seem, your reasoning. So let's reverse your example. Kill 101 third world farmers to save 100 world leaders. Again, the ends are the same, but now you have to kill people to achieve the more desirable end. People who consider the means would say that the catastrophic situation resulting from the death of 100 world leaders would be worth it, so long as you do not commit an undesirable act. Now here's my own example: say you have to snatch an innocent old lady's purse in order to save the 100 world leaders. It's an absurd situation, I know, but most of the examples we've given wouldn't happen anyway. So the means is stealing an old woman's purse - most would consider this to be an immoral act. One who does not believe the ends can justify the means would have to concede that because the means are immoral the act is immoral, yet you still end up with the same terrible situation. If you consider most acts that are widely considered to be immoral individually, they just so happen to have ends that are undesirable. Murder ends a person's life against their will. Theft unfairly takes property from someone who has earned it. Couple this with a general distrust of that which we consider strange (homosexuality, for example), and you can account for why humans consider just about any act immoral. You have, however, hit upon an important concept: the ends can get extremely complicated as you're given more information. Should you invade country X to stop the leader from killing thousands and generally improve the people's lives? Well then you have to consider the potential casualties on all sides, the probability of success, the possibility that you'll create a situation that worsens the people's lives and kills them faster than before, what an invasion would mean for the other countries in the region, what kind of precedent you've set for future leaders of your country, how other countries will view the invasion and whether you will be able to get their support later when a more urgent matter comes up, and so on. This doesn't invalidate the idea that the ends justify the means, however. It is just something that must be taken with great care, as all moral choices ought to be taken. Side: Yes
Well I disagree with you. In most circumstances the end DOES NOT justify the means. While you subscribe to the utilitarian view that suggests greater good for the greater number, that it may be okay to kill one person to save a million, the utilitarian theory is simply insufficient to justify the means to an end if you take into account what happen during the Holocaust when the Nazis use POW in scientific experiments. Supposing that the motivation for using POW as subjects in scientific experiments is to further scientific knowledge, it is clearly unjustifiable if the basic human rights of the POW is taken away, and in this case, having atrocious experiments that even attempted to 'sew' two human beings together to see if they can perform like conjoined twins. In this case, the utilitarian theory is evidently insufficient to justify the means to an end. Now take a simple example of how famous "Father of India" Mohammed Gandhi and notorious terrorist group Al Qaeda sought to achieve peace with their vastly different means, and how they are viewed and treated by the people. While it may be true that these two examples lie at the very extreme of the spectrum, it is obvious that Mohammed Gandhi earned respect for his peaceful methods adopted to achieve peace compared to terrorist group who are only feared and reproached by the international community despite wanting to achieve the very same goal. This goes to show that the means must be justified themselves, even if the end may be extremely desirable. Side: Yes
I agree with gunman for the most part. However i feel that the mentality the "ends justify the means" creates an attitude that doesn't care what happens on the path to the final result. For instance businesses outsource to other countries to save more money. Can saving money for the business justify putting local Americans out of jobs? Cutting down rainforest's for planting crops and developments is also an instance where the ends don't justify the means. would you kill 5 people to save 100? Well this is a times were the ends might justify the means but can we tell? what if one of those 5 people if they live creates a cure for cancer yet if they die no cure for cancer is created? It is really difficult to make such a choice because you just can't know everything, but chances are that most people will not be presented with a choice such as that. the more common choice will be more direct and possibly to do with money. and in this case is having more money(by any multiple) worth the suffering attaining that money might cause? Thus i believe that the end rarely justifies the means. Side: No
I'd say to be a moral person you must do no harm in your actions, first and foremost. It may be beneficial for the collective to kill `1 to save 100, but for the individual Id say it'd be an immoral act. That is just a personal belief, however, and I wouldn't try to push it on anyone else or judge them for their actions. But for me, personally, the order is as such: Do no harm Prevent harm when possible Promote good (happiness, healthiness, etc) So I wouldnt say the ends justify the means. However, someone else may believe they should: Prevent as much harm as possible Do no harm Promote good In which case they would justify the means with the ends. Side: No
Twisted trick question. Justification is a weird thing. It's not the means or actions that counts any more, it's more about your ability to justify them, people get too good at that. A few hours ago I was playing pool with a friend, the noise around us was 10% awful music and 90% other people talking and mostly justifying the miss shots, as if the human brain suddenly figured out pretty much everything, and is now multi-aware, we can now easily point out the REASON for everything. I missed mostly because I get drunk very quickly. He missed mostly because he was trying to listen to me. She missed mostly because earlier that night she was trying to explain that she doesn't have to mood to it, but they forced her. People here prefer the 1 vs. 1.000.000 example, could they think about the end million while they shoot the one means? Could there be a start from which means are considered as relevant to the result? Could life-saving be considered as an end? Wouldn't they die anyway? Could any state of things be considered as an end, now appropriate for calculating the acts, judging and punishing? Isn't death the only end? Is justification really matters when you're dead? Isn't it quite a self-esteem workout more then another desperate search for a true virtue to hang on to as our common grounds? Side: No
|
