The ends justify the means.

[yasic]

Do the ends justify the means if the ends are much better than the means?

Is it justifiable to kill someone if you know for certain 2 lives will be spared?

Is it justifiable to lie to prevent someone from putting their career at danger?

Etc?


When do the ends not justify the means? When do they do?



Sorry this is so open ended, just that phrase always bothered me.

 

[quatona]

If it´s not the ends that justify the means, what else would or could justify the means?
(I have always felt uncomfortable with the phrase "the ends justify the means", but I suspect that´s only because it is typically used in the meaning of "these ends justify any means")

 

[JCFantasy23]

It's an interesting question and I've considered things like this too. Watchmen - the movies theme was this question really. I guess it depends on following your moral compass and what you think God would want you to do depending on what situation comes up. Your question on justifiable to kill a person when two lives would be spared...I guess it depends on the details. Self-defense? Legal execution (death penalty) Like in the movie/book Dead Zone where the man knew the mayor would be elected and kill many, so tried to kill him first to prevent it?

With the last example my answer would likely be no, you can't prevent or forsee someone else's sins. They are to be accountable for their sins one day. God is the one who handles that, not us.

 

[Mystman]

Yes. But you need to include all the ends. So if you want to accomplish something really good, you may do something kinda bad to get it, but there will be side-effects that need to be taken into account. Often, it's difficult or impossible to accurately predict all the effects that a certain action will have, and then it may be better to just do nothing.

 

[RocketRed]

Most of the time, I don't think the ends justify the means. Pretty much every time I've heard that phrase, it's been in defense and/or justification of an otherwise heinous act. It's always struck me as rationalizing an immoral act.

Are there situations in which the ends do indeed justify the means? Sure. But I think they're quite, quite few and the the aforementioned defense is over-used in non-applicable situations.

 

[keith99]

If it´s not the ends that justify the means, what else would or could justify the means?
(I have always felt uncomfortable with the phrase "the ends justify the means", but I suspect that´s only because it is typically used in the meaning of "these ends justify any means")

I agree, it seems to be treated as some binary decision. Either the end totally excuses any means or the ends are totally ignored. That is absurd. Cutting a leg off to save a life becasue the leg is shattered or has gangren is not just OK but good. Cutting your heart out to save my life is not, yet the end is exactly the same.

Also in practice it seems those claiming the ends justify the means are often such scum that one doubts the claimed ends will be reached, or often if they are desired in hte slightest.

 

[RocketRed]

I agree, it seems to be treated as some binary decision. Either the end totally excuses any means or the ends are totally ignored. That is absurd. Cutting a leg off to save a life becasue the leg is shattered or has gangren is not just OK but good. Cutting your heart out to save my life is not, yet the end is exactly the same.

Also in practice it seems those claiming the ends justify the means are often such scum that one doubts the claimed ends will be reached, or often if they are desired in hte slightest.

This this this this!

 

[Penumbra]

Do the ends justify the means if the ends are much better than the means?

Is it justifiable to kill someone if you know for certain 2 lives will be spared?

Is it justifiable to lie to prevent someone from putting their career at danger?

Etc?

When do the ends not justify the means? When do they do?

Sorry this is so open ended, just that phrase always bothered me.

I think it depends on the context, and all of the ends need to be taken into account (and many of them will likely be unforeseeable, depending on how complex the situation is.)

I think an important thing to consider is that the ends include the memory of the means (or include false history to cover up the means). So if you built your kingdom on genocide, then when the ends come and you have a kingdom, the memory is there that it was built on genocide. This genocidal history is now part of the ends.

I wouldn't kill an innocent person to save two innocent people, because now those two innocent people have to live with the fact that another innocent person had to die so that they can live. The memory of the means is with them at the end. I might kill an aggressor in defense of innocents, if I could.

-Lyn

 

[keith99]

One other thing with the all or none mentality that goes with 'The ends justify the means' is that often any attempt to minimize the damage of the means goes out the window.

Look at my avatar. One could say he thought the ends justified the means, after all he was rather deeply involved in a murder plot, and one that would have to have collertal damage. But while there were many plans there never was a plan to take out half of Berlin to get their target.

 

[RJirriq]

Nobody can know anything for certain if it has not happened yet. So "the end justifies the means" can only be used in hindsight. Furthermore there is almost always many different ways of getting to a particular end. It would be more accurate to phrase it "the probability of the ends justify the means."

I find it interesting that keith99 doesn't think it Okay or good for someone to cut his own heart out to save keith99's life even though I find myself aggreeing with him. I find myself in conflict when I think of a man knowingly going to his own agonizing death to save me from eternal torture.

 

[keith99]

Nobody can know anything for certain if it has not happened yet. So "the end justifies the means" can only be used in hindsight. Furthermore there is almost always many different ways of getting to a particular end. It would be more accurate to phrase it "the probability of the ends justify the means."

I find it interesting that keith99 doesn't think it Okay or good for someone to cut his own heart out to save keith99's life even though I find myself aggreeing with him. I find myself in conflict when I think of a man knowingly going to his own agonizing death to save me from eternal torture.

Actually if someone were to decide to sacrifice themself to save me I'm OK with it. Their life is theirs to lay down as they choose. My issues are if I were to take their life or some 3rd party were to decide. Though as things stand in this part of my life I am far more apt to be the one sacrificing then the one benefiting (And that is still a vanishingly small chance).

Note how different things sound if someone sacrificing themself says 'The ends justify the cost'.

 

[RJirriq]

double post.. how do i delete it?

 

[RJirriq]

Actually if someone were to decide to sacrifice themself to save me I'm OK with it. Their life is theirs to lay down as they choose. My issues are if I were to take their life or some 3rd party were to decide. Though as things stand in this part of my life I am far more apt to be the one sacrificing then the one benefiting (And that is still a vanishingly small chance).

Note how different things sound if someone sacrificing themself says 'The ends justify the cost'.

Yes, I was reading your original post as If I were cutting my heart out to save you... not you cutting my heart out to save yourself. (I wondered how I would have cut my own heart out but thought it would bring the thread off topic) As it stands, you think it's perfectly alright for someone to commit suicide in order to save someone else's life? I just can't seem to rationalize that, I could probably find myself jumping in front of a bullet as a reflex but I still don't think it is okay, and would feel extremely guilty if someone saved my life in such a manner. Hypothetically, It strikes me the same way my mother confessing to a crime I committed and then serving time instead of me.

I think it's because nobody should be able to decided who lives and who dies except the creator, my original example of Jesus giving up his own life fits with this without conflict.