The ends justify the means

[Scamper]

The problem with the question "Do the ends justify the means?" is that people tend to think that you're justifying the means separate from the ends, and that a bad end can justify a bad means. In all accuracy one is not doing so. A more accurate phrase is "As the ends, so the means." If an end is bad then the means is suspect. As a previous example, if someone killed an evil dictator and saved thousands of lives, they have committed murder, which is a bad end. The actual meaning of "the ends justify the means" is that if the ends are good, the means must have been good. One cannot get good ends from bad means.

[Slytovhand]

Problem with that, Scamper.

Evil dictator kills thousands of people. One of those people (in an alternate universe, to make understanding my point easier), was to go on and be a world-class doctor and save many lives. One of those lives was a woman who becomes a saint by giving all her time and energy in making the world a better place. One of those she helps get food, shelter and education goes on to a foreign country, gets the best of university education, and starts biological research and creates a new plague that wipes out tens of millions. Fortunately, it eventually strengthens our immune system to the point that most diseases are cured... but we become carriers of most of them.. and when we meet an alien race, we make them extinct... etc etc etc


Consequences change all the time. What can be good short term can be disasterous long term.

Of course - when do we stop looking and calculating?

[Pedersen]

Of course - when do we stop looking and calculating?

That one's almost too easy Slyt: We stop looking and calculating at the point that we are unable to look and calculate further.

For instance, we won't be able to see several lifetimes into the future. Trying to determine what will happen with a specific child (and that child's offspring, and that child's offspring) becomes worse than pointless: It prevents you from ever doing anything, good or evil.

We can make educated guesses about the immediate impact of our actions. Sometimes we have sufficient information to make long term decisions. But to be as moral as possible, we must always try to make use of all of the information we have available to us.

[Slytovhand]

It was this sort of reasoning that I did an essay in Moral Philosophy saying that morals don't exist (for a given definition of 'morals'). That definition, obviously, relating to consequences (rather than intent).

While you mention 'several lifetimes', I'd say there is no calculation at any time... who knows what's going to happen 2 seconds after a particular action occurs?

Which leads to your connclusion about "preventing you from ever doing anything"... cos it made me think of something....

Do the means, and the associated endings anticipated, justify the accidental consequences? If Hitler had've been assassinated in, say, 1942, and it brought in an even worse dictator.. more sociological and deranged, where sits this little thought experiment now??