The ends justify the means

[Slytovhand]

Hey gang.

Just given a thread or 2, I'd pose this as a more general question...

Do the ends justify the means?

Some would seem to say yes, but perhaps in other cases, no.

Thoughts?

[Evandril]

It depends on the ends and the means 'Tis a black and white question, IMO, and the world just is not polite enough to fall into two catagories for us.

[Greenday]

Sometimes in history, the ends have justified the means. Other times nothing could have justified the means. It's almost always a situation by situation basis for this kind of thing.

[ExiledV20]

Hey gang.

Just given a thread or 2, I'd pose this as a more general question...

Do the ends justify the means?

Some would seem to say yes, but perhaps in other cases, no.

Thoughts?

Mostly I say yes. However, I am biased in that I prefer a practical, resolution-based methodology of thinking. This sort of logical bias is very annoying when trying to deal with intangibles; practical and resolution-based does not always work real well within the confines of a marriage, for instance.

[Sylvia727]

I would say that the ends justify the means in some situations and do not in others, as well. So let me ask a variation of the OP's question: in what situations do the ends justify the means? What is/are the distinguishing factor(s)? I assume, since the original question poses the issue of "justification", that the means used here are hurtful or immoral. So would the answer be balance? If the results are less damage than the means used, is that okay? What if there was another method that could have resulted in less damage and much less benefit? Is it all right to cause more injury in exchange for much more profit? What if the damage is only to one's own self, one's own sense of self-worth or, dare I say it, one's moral/spiritual nature?

[Boozy]

Personally, I don't believe that good results come from bad behaviour. We just think it does. Eventually, we'll pay for it.

But this is a sort of spiritual belief for me, so I can't really prove it. It's just how I live my life.

[Flyndaran]

The ends never justify the means on a personal level. I would rather the whole world burn than to kill one innocent person. Too bad I'm in the minority.

[Pedersen]

Slyt, your question here is too generic to be given an answer. Without defining the "ends" and the "means", there's no way to analyze.

For instance, your question is so generic that we could just as easily ask "Is acquiring an object from its rightful owner by giving the owner its market value (plus any sentimental value) in money and having the owner relinquish possession in exchange for said money a justifiable action?"

Assuming no coercion, I think most everybody on this board would agree with that.

Too generic a question to ask. Sorry.

[Boozy]

The phrase implies using immoral means to achieve an end that is morally "good". I don't think that's too generic to discuss.

Although if Slyt wanted to give a few examples, that would be welcome.

[Pedersen]

I still say it's too generic to discuss as it stands.

Simple examples as to the range of potential topics:

• If you accept that knowingly breaking the law is immoral, then going 5 or 10 over the speed limit to get somewhere a little faster is immoral. Do the ends justify the means? If not, what if there is a pet in the car that is dying? What if there's a person?
• If you accept that taking from someone else by force is wrong, then the issue of taxing the unwilling for any reason can be considered immoral. Do the ends justify the means?
• If you accept that discrimination is wrong, and also accept that forcing someone to do something they do not wish to do is wrong, then the issue of telling someone that they may not refuse to hire someone for a given job solely on the basis of skin color/gender/religion/etc can be considered immoral. Do the ends justify the means?
• If you accept that freedom of speech is moral, and also accept that hurting someone else's feelings is wrong, then disciplining a child for hurting someone else's feelings can be considered immoral. Do the ends justify the means?

And that's off the top of my head. Stuff that is so small, and so slight, and widely thought of as being okay, is all lumped into the same category as stuff like animal testing.

And that level of issue gets lumped in with the really big question that might be what's implied (then again, since it's implied, and we're reading between the lines, it might not) in the OP: What if you can save 10 lives by sacrificing one? Or save 100, or 1000, etc? Do the ends justify the means?

I still believe that the question is entirely too broad to actually discuss. If it's narrowed down to specific situations, then it becomes useful to discuss.

[lordlundar]

Maybe.

Hey, ask a vague question, get a vague answer. Everything you do to to accomplish a goal is a means to an end. Even crossing the street to get to a store for example. There needs to be a context for the question to get something more than a maybe.

[Slytovhand]

Actually, no, it's not a vague question at all.

It is, in fact, quite specific... though easy to miss.

The question boils down to - when seeking to 'justify' a particular action, when making moral or ethical judgements, are the goals themselves sufficient to make the particular actions themselves 'right' or 'wrong'? Or, is there some other criterion (/a) which we look for.

Throughout the other threads, it has been suggested that Afghanistan should have handed over Bin Laden - regardless of guilt or innocence - knowing that he would in all probability been killed almost on sight. It has also been suggested that to do so would have been a breach of some of our most fundamental views of life, liberty and human rights. Which takes precedence? Are there some other values to look at? Is the human right of one man worth defending (and perhaps, losing) and entire country?

Similarly, the first 2 atomic bombings in Japan can be viewed either way - if they were military targets, then all is good. If it saved hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of lives, then all is good. Even if it meant sacrificing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

And again, more recently, if Hamas, through their recent rocket attacks, manage to lever out of Israel a few more acres of land, won't that have justified those attacks?

And as a final question - it has basically been suggested that 'might makes right'. Israel successfully took the West Bank off Jordan through war, thus it is 'theirs'. Applying the same logic, with the US being the most militarily superior nation on Earth at this moment in time, there should be no qualms if the USA waged a war with X country, won easily, and then annexed it for it's own purposes... and all that would be ok, assuming X country had some goodies the US wants (say, merely for hypothetical example...oh...oil, maybe??).

So - any thoughts now?

After all, if we can get an answer to this, and a concrete one at that, doesn't it make all other future decisions a lot easier to contemplate?

[Evandril]

Actually, no, it's not a vague question at all.

The problem is, it fits FAR too many examples. Is human testing of something that might cure AIDS acceptable, in the final stages where the risk is known to be possibly fatal, but slim? IMO, yes...so the ends justify the means (Human testing for medical research)

Is human testing of a skin creme designed to glow funky colors acceptable, before any lab work has been done, when it contains known harmful substances, but the makers are guessing it's safe? No...So wait, the ends didn't justify the means this time...and it's a less vauge example.

The question of the ends justifying the means has been asked throughout time...and ignores the idea of things not being black and white, in my opinion.

[Slytovhand]

Well... you've just started attaching to human life... where's the value there? Vs human ego...

[Evandril]

Again, 'tis situational...Human life has value dependant on the human in question, in my eyes. Bin Laden's life holds very little value to me, but my family holds a great deal...More than my own, in fact.