The ends justify the means

[Slytovhand]

So... personal motivation and attachments can justify the means?

[Evandril]

I'm going to be speeding home tonight, so I can be with my family sooner, so they *can*, yes

[lordlundar]

So - any thoughts now?

Yeah, you finally gave some context to the question, but my original statement stands for your original question.

"Do the ends justify the means?" Can be applied to ANYTHING that is an action being done to achieve a particular result. Stretching out my arm to grab a glass is an action being done to accomplish a particular result, ie the stretching out of my arm being the action and grabbing the glass is the result. In that instance, I can ask the question "Do the ends justify the means?" and have an answer.

This is not a question that can be answered yes or no and be right 100% of the time. Without a context for the question, there can be no right answer than "maybe".

That said, lets look into the context you gave:

Osama - He forfeited his rights when he ordered the attacks. Where were the principal views of life, liberty and human rights when over 3000 people died and he was cheering. When you deny the other, you deny yourself.

A-Bombs - It was not so much an effort to subdue Japan as it was to show off the might of the US. Incidentally, all the bombings did was piss off Japan. The surrender can be more attributed to losing a good chunk of their military forces at sea and in China and the Soviets breathing down their neck. Dropping the bombs was unnecessary, especially given the targets.

Hamas - Both sides are acting like spoiled children fighting over a sandbox. With either side, it's not just a matter of wanting the land, it's that the other side can't have it. There's no justification by either side there, just petty excuses compounded by a generational hatred.

"might makes right" - you give a hypothetical, I'll give you a pair of realistic. Iraq and Georgia. Both are effectively US puppet states, both have oil resources, and both have been in military conflict for the reserves, backed by the US. Both situations were condemned internationally against the US. And given your hypothetical, it's not a case of it being accepted, but a case of there being a nation able to oppose it.

[Greenday]

Something in my Criminal Behavior & Deviancy class today made me think of this thread.

We were sitting and my teacher continued on from Wednesday, displaying pictures of different people, asking us if we thought they were deviants (people smoking 10 cigarettes at once, underage drinking, smoking weed, injecting heroin, etc.). The first picture he had up today was a soldier holding back an attack dog trying to intimidate a prisoner. My teacher asked us about torturing for information and whether the ends justify the means for that. The kid next to me immediately responded, "YES!" and my teacher looked at him and said, "No...they don't." I then thought about this thread and started laughing. Thank God I wasn't too loud.

[Sylvia727]

my teacher looked at him and said, "No...they don't."

That's pretty arrogant of your teacher to state a subjective position as fact. If one person knew where to find a bomb that would kill 1,000 people and he wasn't talking? Would the saving of a thousand lives justify the torture of one man? If he knew where a bomb would be planted in the future? Where a terrorist attack might occur in the future? Where to find the people who do know where the terrorist attack might occur? Where to look for the people who know? The names of people who might be planning an attack? The names of people who dislike the USA's politics? The names of people who made fat jokes about the USA president? As it shades through grey, a personal line is drawn, and it's not the same for each person.

[AFPheonix]

Except that researchers have proven repeatedly that the intelligence gathered from less than savory means tends to be pretty flawed, as someone will say just about anything, especially something they think will make the punishment stop, even if it's a lie.
So no, as far as torture goes, the ends do not justify the means since the ends obtained are inherently flawed.

[Greenday]

And you think torture will actually get a person to talk? They could just as easily lie and the torture stops. And once we find out they were lying, it won't matter any more because it's too late.

[Sylvia727]

Yes, yes. I was assuming a closed hypothetical, with given absolutes. In the real world, there are far more factors. Also, if one has nothing else to hand, a flawed method with a low chance of success is better than doing nothing, with a zero chance of success. I find it odd that some people will say it's better to sacrifice one life to save a thousand, and then turn around and say that torture is unjustified. Torture is more justifiable, as it isless damage than execution (quality of life issues aside). There are situations where neither is justifiable. In the real world, each situation is unique, with a different environment and set of factors. I'd have a hard time working as a police negotiator or similiar; I'd always be terrified that I'd overlooked some detail that skews the whole picture.

[PepperElf]

I have to agree... It all depends on what the "ends" and "means" are.

For example...

1) Driving 5 MPH above the speed limit on the highway to get Mom home faster when she's feeling sick.
To me that's pretty justifiable. (not to mention that other cars were driving faster)

2) Stepping on the backs of everyone else, and getting ahead in a job no matter how many people you screw over...
Well the person who made it to the top would say it's justifiable. But everyone else who got hurt will probably give a different answer.

3) ... I'm not sure how much is allowed in fratching, but whenever I hear of the "ends justifies the means" I think of the Holocaust. Prime example of the ends NOT justifying the means.

[Pedersen]

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.

Been pondering this for a bit Slyt, and I think I understand your original question a bit better.

To answer: No, the ends are not sufficient to justify the means.

In any moral question, I see four factors to consider, personally: The goal, the consequences of the goal, the method, and the consequences of that method.

The goal itself can be a moral goal (stopping a dictator from causing a war), while the consequences of that goal can still be immoral (stopping said dictator from causing said war leaves an entire nation in the grip of a massive economic failure resulting in inability to sustain themselves).

The method can be moral (talking him out of it), immoral (killing him). The consequences of the method itself can be moral and immoral as well (talking him out of it could mean finding a way to help him feed his people. killing him could start a civil war that results in even more deaths than the economic failure).

We have to evaluate all four factors to the best of our ability to do so.

So, to answer your question, are the ends sufficient to justify the means? No. Never are the ends, alone, sufficient to justify the means. Much more has to be considered.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Ped... nice thinking

So, that does make me wonder - which of those takes overall precedence? I'm thinking it's your 'consequences of method'.

As I've indicated in other threads, I think the Afghanistan invasion isn't justified. I don't really think that 'revenge' is a good enough motive (and yes, that's all I see it to be) to send (or keep, as the case may be) a country empoverished, and to kill innocent civilians (regardless of the targets and 'collateral damage'). Granted, this is my opinion (which will cop flack), but as far as this thread goes - any other ways of seeing this that apply to the topic?

[Greenday]

As I've indicated in other threads, I think the Afghanistan invasion isn't justified. I don't really think that 'revenge' is a good enough motive (and yes, that's all I see it to be) to send (or keep, as the case may be) a country empoverished, and to kill innocent civilians (regardless of the targets and 'collateral damage'). Granted, this is my opinion (which will cop flack), but as far as this thread goes - any other ways of seeing this that apply to the topic?

Afghanistan was not just revenge. The country's government was run by a terrorist organization bent on attacking us and other western nations. They attacked us and we took them out of power, drastically hurting their capabilities to do whatever the hell they want. Afghanistan wasn't better off before we were in so it's not like we walked in, turned it from a first world nation to a third world nation. And no one tried/tries to kill innocent civilians. Soldiers don't walk into cities and shoot everyone in sight. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen. There is nothing reckless about the military's actions. If a battle is going on and someone is dumb enough to try to go through it instead of around it, then I fully believe that to be acceptable collateral damage. You can't put yourself in harm's way and expect nothing to ever happen.

[Slytovhand]

Staying off the extremely contentious specifics, and just go with 'collateral damage'.

Justified?? etc. Obviously, Greenday thinks so... but I will throw in one question then - what if that collateral damage is happening to Americans? Humans tend to identify, and thus create a bias, with social groups - and make 'us' and 'them' judgements differently.


*nitpick - "Soldiers don't walk into cities and shoot everyone in sight". A few in Vietnam and other countries might disagree...

[Greenday]

*nitpick - "Soldiers don't walk into cities and shoot everyone in sight". A few in Vietnam and other countries might disagree...

I wasn't alive at that time during Vietnam, so I don't know as much about it, but in today's world, if an American soldier does something like that, he's going to jail for a long time.

[Pedersen]

So, that does make me wonder - which of those takes overall precedence? I'm thinking it's your 'consequences of method'.

Not necessarily. In any given situation, any one of those pieces can be the piece with the highest priority.

Situation: To prevent a war that will kill millions, one man must do an act that he finds morally reprehensible and will leave him suicidal for the rest of his days. The consequences of the method are devastating to one man, but the consequences of the goal are very good.

Situation: To avoid losing his job, a man speeds on the way to work during a heavy snowstorm. He spins out of control, regains control before hitting anything/anyone, and continues on his way. He gets to work on time. The people around him, though, reacted badly, and were unable to recover. He caused a 6 car accident with 2 deaths. The goal was good, the method was poor, and the consequences worse.

Situation: To wipe out a specific disease, a certain ethnic group must be exterminated. The goal is good, the method is terrible.

I can come up with others, if you wish. My point, though, is that, for any given situation, all of the factors must be weighed, as any of them can contain the tipping point into "good" or "bad" territory.

It's even possible to have a situation where no one of the factors, by itself, is sufficient to determine whether or not the action is good or not. Instead, all of them, taken as a whole, tip the scales.

Unfortunately, I'm on the sleepy side right now, so don't have a good example of this one, sorry.