Is there ever a situation where the means justify the end?

[public hermit]

Is your family in danger? Most jurries will allow you
to do almost anything in your pursuit of their safety.

To the best of my knowledge, no. I asked the question because I am truly curious how other Christians think about this particular ethical approach. I assume most Christians believe right is right and wrong is wrong. However, I do wonder if Christians make an exception for those in positions of power. This is a Christian forum, so I thought it would be a good place to learn.

 

[public hermit]

That depends. Is it right or wrong to kill a mosquito?
Is self defence justified?
Is defending your family justified?
Is defending your life justified?
Is stopping a speeding car justified?
Is stopping a rape justified?
Is jail time justified?
Is stopping crimes against others justified?
Non-violent crimes?
Misdomeners?
Felonies?
Is divorce right or wrong?
Is kidnapping your own child right or wrong?
Is spanking right or wrong?
Is slapping right or wrong?
Is non-violent protest right or wrong?
Violent protest?


Yes, the end result justifies the means. But not always.
I can walk, jog, ride a bus, drive, hitchhike, or crawl over broken glass to get to work.
I always justify the means with the desire to be to work on time.
There are many things that I can come up with that would not be justified.
But mostly, yes.

I think the issue with the end justifying the means is when, under usual circumtances, the means is considered immoral. Defending one's family would not be an issue, presumably. Killing an innocent person to save a multitude, might be. At least, that is the usual example used to show the problem.

 

[Simancia]

I think the resounding "context is key" is the answer. For instance, suicide is (in many Christian denominations) considered wrong, yes? But John 15:13 says “no one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” So, in essence, that IS suicide, laying down your life. But, it's a great love, so how is it morally wrong? I think you get my point here. I am sure we could argue the above for quite some time but I am a true believer in what is in someone's heart and what motivates their actions.

 

[SkyWriting]

To the best of my knowledge, no. I asked the question because I am truly curious how other Christians think about this particular ethical approach. I assume most Christians believe right is right and wrong is wrong. However, I do wonder if Christians make an exception for those in positions of power. This is a Christian forum, so I thought it would be a good place to learn.

Most Christians do want to believe in absolutes. But under self-analysis......never mind. That takes years.

 

[escapee]

In that script, Jesus' enemies are saying that one man should die so that the nation perish not. This answers the question, that the end never justifies the means.

Murder is somewhat light because it can be seen as both mercy and a new start. But torture belongs here too which is a lot worse.

I think the OP scripture declares that the end never justifies the means.

Concerning governments, only offices of kings are established by God, democratic institutions are not. So democratic governments, especially the socialist ones are in the wrong. Kings can make mistakes too, and that falls under the category of unrepentant believers within the ranks of advisers and other officials.

 

[Sparagmos]

Consider the problem of "dirty hands," which concerns whether or not a national leader is ever justified in committing some immoral act for the sake of the greater good. For example, we generally assume murder is always wrong. However, would it be acceptable for a national leader to kill an innocent person if in doing so the nation would be saved?

Do the means ever justify the end? As you think about this consider John 11:47-50.

Do the ends justify the means? Yes. But that is simply a semantic trick. The ends include the means. When you take a guilty life to save an innocent life, the end result is both the taking of the guilty life and the saving of the innocent life. That end is better than an end where a guilty life is saved, but the innocent life is taken. In war, the end result is what should be judged, and that end includes all lives lost and all lives saved, as well as long term effects.

 

[dqhall]

Consider the problem of "dirty hands," which concerns whether or not a national leader is ever justified in committing some immoral act for the sake of the greater good. For example, we generally assume murder is always wrong. However, would it be acceptable for a national leader to kill an innocent person if in doing so the nation would be saved?

Do the means ever justify the end? As you think about this consider John 11:47-50.

Murder is wrong. The chief priests who demanded the death penalty for Jesus can not be justified.

Jesus said, "No man can serve two masters." Those who shouted "crucify" could not have been serving God.

 

[Sparagmos]

No the ends do not justify the method.
Right and Wrong are absolutes , they are not relative.

So are you a pacifist?

 

[fhansen]

Consider the problem of "dirty hands," which concerns whether or not a national leader is ever justified in committing some immoral act for the sake of the greater good. For example, we generally assume murder is always wrong. However, would it be acceptable for a national leader to kill an innocent person if in doing so the nation would be saved?

Do the means ever justify the end? As you think about this consider John 11:47-50.

These are teachings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the topic:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[jamesbond007]

That's an interesting take, and I am somewhat inclined to agree. Given that line of reasoning, would you say that Caiaphas was justified (given what he knew at the moment of utterance) in asserting that Jesus should be put to death for the good of the nation? (see John 11:49-51). Not trying to throw a trick question at you, just curious how you might navigate that particular instance.

States have the death penalty and have put to people that were found innocent afterward. It's the price we pay for justice, i.e. the gravest injustice, which was the reason Jesus was put to death. I'm saying what happened was inevitable; it still happens to this day. However, even the thief knew Jesus was innocent.

So, to answer your question, the ends never justifies the means, but we do it all the time and will continue to do it I believe.

 

[public hermit]

States have the death penalty and have put to people that were found innocent afterward. It's the price we pay for justice, i.e. the gravest injustice, which was the reason Jesus was put to death. I'm saying what happened was inevitable; it still happens to this day. However, even the thief knew Jesus was innocent.

So, to answer your question, the ends never justifies the means, but we do it all the time and will continue to do it I believe.

I agree. It's a sad commentary, but no doubt true.

 

[public hermit]

Do the ends justify the means? Yes. But that is simply a semantic trick. The ends include the means. When you take a guilty life to save an innocent life, the end result is both the taking of the guilty life and the saving of the innocent life. That end is better than an end where a guilty life is saved, but the innocent life is taken. In war, the end result is what should be judged, and that end includes all lives lost and all lives saved, as well as long term effects.

I see why you would say it is a semantic trick. It is trivially true that all ends include means. However, some actions are considered immoral in and of themselves, but we might adjust our judgment of their immorality if the outcome is very good. Stealing is generally considered immoral, but we might look the other way if a starving child steals a loaf of bread.

It has been a good bit since I have read Aquinas, but I believe he argued that the end does not justify the means. However, the child who steals to live is not stealing another person's property. In this case, the property becomes common property by virtue of the child's need (somewhere in the Summa). I like Aquinas, and I think that's a pretty crafty solution. But, why not just say, in some extreme situations the end does justify the means?

 

[Sparagmos]

I see why you would say it is a semantic trick. It is trivially true that all ends include means. However, some actions are considered immoral in and of themselves, but we might adjust our judgment of their immorality if the outcome is very good. Stealing is generally considered immoral, but we might look the other way if a starving child steals a loaf of bread.

It has been a good bit since I have read Aquinas, but I believe he argued that the end does not justify the means. However, the child who steals to live is not stealing another person's property. In this case, the property becomes common property by virtue of the child's need (somewhere in the Summa). I like Aquinas, and I think that's a pretty crafty solution. But, why not just say, in some extreme situations the end does justify the means?

I did say that, in my first sentence. In fact, I think the ends always justify the means, because again the result of what means / action you took must be weighed as an end. To me, it’s recognizing that, for instance, the child didn’t steal the bread they would starve. Therefore stealing the bread is moral, because it prevents the death of an innocent. When looking at multiple courses of action, we should evaluate the end result and take the course of action which creates the least amount of suffering in the long run and produces the most good in the long run.

I’m curious, are you a Marxist? Because what you describe re the bread becoming common property if needed to feed the starving is basically communism.

 

[public hermit]

I did say that, in my first sentence. In fact, I think the ends always justify the means, because again the result of what means / action you took must be weighed as an end. To me, it’s recognizing that, for instance, the child didn’t steal the bread they would starve. Therefore stealing the bread is moral, because it prevents the death of an innocent. When looking at multiple courses of action, we should evaluate the end result and take the course of action which creates the least amount of suffering in the long run and produces the most good in the long run.

I’m curious, are you a Marxist? Because what you describe re the bread becoming common property if needed to feed the starving is basically communism.

No, I am not a Marxist. I was talking about Thomas Aquinas: "In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common" (Summa Theologiae ,Question 66, Article 7 "Is it lawful to thieve in case of necessity"). Maybe, you would say Aquinas is a Marxist. The problem is, communism is an economic system enforced by a government. That is not what Aquinas is referring to. He is saying God placed human goods in creation for the good of all humans. If one human is in an extreme situation, that one human can take what is needed, because God placed it there for all humans. So, there is a marked difference between an economic system enforced by a government and a child who steals bread to live.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do the means ever justify the end?

This is a very valid question when it comes to health and medicine. Look at vaccines for example. Lets just say that the conspiracy theories are true and they do have side effects. The question is: does the benefit outweigh the cost. What would be the consequences of not giving the vaccine.

What about the shooter in Los Vegas, or any other mass murder. If they can take out the mass shooter so only one life is lost. Is that not better then allowing him to kill 50 people? We deal with populations and individuals. Sometimes the individual has to pay a price for the benefit of the population.

Kennedy said: "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Today we have people that want to put the individual ahead of what is best for the population.

 

[joshua 1 9]

God placed human goods in creation for the good of all humans.

God is the judge if people use what they have to help others or not. We have free will. Love is not love if we do not have the ability to be able to choose freely. We are to love our enemy and do good to all people. Under communism and socialism they want to force people and take away their freedom of choice. So that love is no longer a part of the equation. We are to give freely as an expression of out love, care, concern and compassion for people. Not because of compulsion or fear of the consequences. Freely we receive from God and freely we are to give. The more we give the more we get back in return from God.

 

[public hermit]

This is a very valid question when it comes to health and medicine. Look at vaccines for example. Lets just say that the conspiracy theories are true and they do have side effects. The question is: does the benefit outweigh the cost. What would be the consequences of not giving the vaccine.

What about the shooter in Los Vegas, or any other mass murder. If they can take out the mass shooter so only one life is lost. Is that not better then allowing him to kill 50 people? We deal with populations and individuals. Sometimes the individual has to pay a price for the benefit of the population.

Kennedy said: "Ask NOT what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Today we have people that want to put the individual ahead of what is best for the population.

Interesting. Great examples!

 

[Tolworth John]

So are you a pacifist?

No.

 

[Tolworth John]

That depends. Is it right or wrong to kill a mosquito?
Is self defence justified?
Is defending your family justified?
Is defending your life justified?
Is stopping a speeding car justified?
Is stopping a rape justified?
Is jail time justified?
Is stopping crimes against others justified?
Non-violent crimes?
Misdomeners?
Felonies?
Is divorce right or wrong?
Is kidnapping your own child right or wrong?
Is spanking right or wrong?
Is slapping right or wrong?
Is non-violent protest right or wrong?
Violent protest?


Yes, the end result justifies the means. But not always.
I can walk, jog, ride a bus, drive, hitchhike, or crawl over broken glass to get to work.
I always justify the means with the desire to be to work on time.
There are many things that I can come up with that would not be justified.
But mostly, yes.

You have not given examples where the objective is used to justify illegal means.
Your illustrations are things that one legally and morally can do.

An example of the ends justifies the means would be to limit illegal drug use by authorising the police to kill drug users.

 

[SkyWriting]

You have not given examples where the objective is used to justify illegal means.

Yes, many of the examples were illegal activities.
And "illegal" means were never mentioned anyway.
Thanks for trying.