Does the end justify the means?

[porphyrian]

What do you think?

Please explain your answer.

[electropop]

1. Never justifies the means,

if by "means" you mean mean means. Dems must always be the party of solid moral character. If we start lying and cheating to win power, we become Republicans.

[porphyrian]

3. I left it intentionally open to interpretation.

I'm interested in peoples' answers.

[porphyrian]

2. Ha! - n/t

[BlooInBloo]

4. Some situations it does, some situations it doesn't....

I think it's too bad that so many people try to substitute catchy, pithy mottos for genuine case-by-case serious thought and consideration.

[porphyrian]

6. Yeah, I agree with that.

They are almost always generalizations and oversimplifcations.

[BlooInBloo]

9. LOL - i betcha you didn't have the "almost" there on the first draft!

And then you thought better of it :)

(Note that it doesn't really matter if I'm right - it's still a good story :rofl: )

[porphyrian]

10. No, it was. I've been burned enough for absolutes. - n/t

[BlooInBloo]

15. Bah! You're no fun! lolol

:)

[porphyrian]

17. I promise to argue with you later, though.

;)

[BlooInBloo]

19. WOOHOO! lmao

[DemInDistress]

5. not if your lies (means) causes the deaths of innocent people

(ends) like lets say, Iraq, 911, spygate, Plame, I dont' agree with this poll. Can that Imbecile King George come out and say,"we needed the oil" WE'RE ADDICTED.
jmho..

[porphyrian]

7. Cool. That's a decent place to draw the line. - n/t

[shadowknows69]

18. Unfortunately that's probably enough

moral ground for most of america. can't have our "american way of life" being threatend in any way. even if it means the deaths of innocents to achieve that. that's the basic thought process of anyone corrupted by comfort and power.

[porphyrian]

26. I like your point of comfort being corrupting.

Apathy is at least as responsible for our current situation as aggression.

[porphyrian]

8. Lots of votes, few explanations... - n/t

[stillcool]

11. a few hundred thousand dead....

people, and a country destroyed, are the means to what end? I guess if you're amoral, and have no concerns for humanity...than the ends would most certainly justify the means.

[porphyrian]

14. Definitely a good argument for a no. - n/t

[napi21]

12. That statement usually means that someone will do something illegal,

imoral, or evil and justify it by saying the end result was good, so it doesn't matter.

The end NEVER justifies a band means in order to get there! NEVER!

[porphyrian]

16. That's a strong no.

Here's something I just thought of, tell me what you think.

What if you had to do something illegal, immoral or evil to save the life of your mother, or your baby? Say, you need $5000 for some operation no insurance will cover, you're broke, no one will give you a loan, and you have no time to earn it legally?

[napi21]

31. Nope, I wouldn't do it. There's always another way.

You see, I'm probably the wrong person to ask about a scenario like that, because I really believe if I tried to steal $5,000, I'd get caught! Then what? They couldn't use the $$ for lifesaving surgery anyway. So you then have 2 problems, and one of them is that I'd be in jail!

I rarely did any of the weird stuff kids do in class. (I'm old, so you have to remember that too.) Day after day, other kids would chew gum in class, probably just because they weren't allowed to. ONE TIME I decided, hey, why not...everybody else does. Guess who got caught?

I got a speeding thicket ONCE! I was following the flow of traffic, and suddenly there was a cop standing in the middle of my lane, waving ME over. I pulled into the place he motioned to, and he said "Maam, do you realize you were driving at 62 MPH in a 55 MPH zone?" Stupid me said "But officer, I was following the flow of traffic, what about them?" His respons..."But I HAVE YOU!"

Right now, I can't think of any reason I would ever do anything I consider to be illegal, imoral, or evil. Is there ANYTHING? I don't know. I suppose in some emergency that I haven't been faced with. Right now, I have to say I sure don't think so.

[porphyrian]

32. Ha! I can relate. Good points. - n/t

[leftofthedial]

13. taken in a broader context, each component of the "means"

is also an "end."

one cannot justify wrong a priori by assuming a justifying outcome, especially when each wrong spins off its own unknown outcomes.

specific situations may dictate exceptions, but as a rule, no. ends do not justify means.

[bryant69]

21. Yeah but isn't the other end of that spectrum complete inertia?

I mean any action can have negative consequences. For example me posting here might annoy or frustrate you - a possibly negative means to a questionably end.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftofthedial]

24. do the right thing

shit still happens sometimes

but when you do the wrong thing, shit already happened.

[porphyrian]

22. Hmm, good point. We don't act in a vacuum.

Well, astronauts do, but I meant more like a closed system.

There are an untold number of factors influencing and influenced by everything that occurs in our space-time continuum. As far as we've been able to determine conclusively so far, we're limited to our five senses and our tools as to how we percieve our universe. We are also limited by a relatively short amount of recorded history (which has been corrupted) and even shorter lifespans (who knows what patterns exist with a cycle of over a couple of millenia that leave no geological or carbon-datable footprint?). Given all this, it probably would be wrong to assume that we can justify an end (which, as you point out, is also each mean to the original end - is that infinite regression?). We are certainly far less aware of the consequences of our actions than most even think.

[leftofthedial]

25. literally all we can do in this life

is to try and do the right thing.

[Jose Diablo]

20. It's a telling question

For it shows that left/right makes little difference, it's actually about the means that we would use.

Often those on the left or right, will morph to the opposite extreme. It is at the extreme ends of the spectrum that generally the ends justify the means, and 'thar be dragons'.

[porphyrian]

27. While I agree that extremists gravitate to the extremes,...

...I don't necessarily believe that everyone at those extremes believe the ends justify the means. Another point I would make: who defines the extremes?

Good answer, though. Moderation is a safe bet.

[TahitiNut]

23. A bird in the hand is worth how many in the bush?

Hmmmm? :evilgrin:

It's comforting to think that 20% of 'liberal' DUers would engage in torture. :scared:

[porphyrian]

28. How long is a piece of string?

Heh.

[TahitiNut]

33. How Long is a piece of work?

[porphyrian]

34. Heh, that's one I cannot answer.

:evilgrin:

[Bridget Burke]

29. Which end? Which means?

Civil disobedience to protest an unjust war? Sure.

Lying to start an unjust war? No.

Of course, my prejudices are showing. I can't help disliking unjust war.

[porphyrian]

30. I don't believe you're wrong in doing so.

In fact, I share the sentiment. Is that a sometimes, then?

[jsamuel]

35. i would say no, but for those who may think otherwise

just make sure you aren't really using the ends as an excuse to do the means... And also don't forget that most of the time there are ways to do things and get to the ends without having to do the means becuase there is always many different ways to solve a problem.

[porphyrian]

36. Good points. We are often limited by the options...

...we aren't aware of, or don't believe exist when they do.

[Marie26]

37. No.

Most of the awful things in this world were done by people who thought the ends justified the means.

[porphyrian]

38. Definitely good supporting evidence.

Can you think of any situation at all where you would vote otherwise? I don't think you're wrong, I'm just curious.

[Marie26]

39. Not really

This is basically a philosophical question, based on our own internal beliefs. So there's no wrong answer. IMO, "the ends justifies the means" is a bad policy in general. Sometimes the "end" is so good, that people feel they can do bad things to reach it, even if they never do achieved that idealized "end." Bush is a perfect example of this - the "end" he preaches is spreading democracy & peace throughout the Mideast, and to achieve this glorious end, he is willing to use some pretty awful means, like wars, invasions, torture, & death. He may never reach that idealized end, but his means have sure had an effect on the world. I think, in general, the people who preach this message tend to let other people endure the sacrificing "means," so they can achieve their own idealized (and selfish) "ends". I think, in general, if your means aren't moral, your end can't be moral or justified. I'm kind of a moral absolutist. :) We have to justify the means, not based on the idealized ends, but individually, on their own merits & consequences. And if the means aren't justified, perhaps the end isn't justified or worth pursuing. I guess I believe the means justify the end. The one exception where I would change my vote is if a person undergoes a sacrificial means himself to achieve the desired end, but that isn't too popular.

[porphyrian]

41. Good answer, thanks. - n/t

[Orsino]

40. Sometimes, perhaps.

A successful assassination of Hitler might well have derailed the Third Reich and/or saved the lives of millions.

I despise violence, but it is sometimes the least of two or more evils. Very rarely. And at the time of its use, the outcome is even more rarely clear.

If Iraq suddenly became prosperous, though, and its inhabitants happier than any people in history, I don't believe the American murder of a hundred thousand or more could ever be "justified." I'm not even sure what that last word means in this context.

[porphyrian]

42. I've talked about your Hitler example with a number of people...

...before, including a bunch of Jews. The answers were pretty interesting. The emotional response was usually that they would kill Hitler, but that wasn't necessarily the answer from Jews (they had already had this conversation before, and had put some thought into it). Some said they wouldn't for reasons along the "two wrongs don't make a right" line of thinking. Some were much more scientific, listing the things that may cease to exist, themselves included, had the Holocaust been prevented. The most inventive answer involved kidnapping Hitler and forcing him to, over a series of speeches and with propaganda, reverse his position on Jews publically and instead give half of Germany for the creation of Israel.

Anyway, thanks for another good answer.

[bemildred]

43. You are what you do. nt

[Jack_DeLeon]

44. In theory the answer is no in practice...

I think it really depends.

It depends on what you are trying to justify and to who.

I could totally justify to myself doing some really horrible things to really horrible people for a very modest ends.

[omega minimo]

45. Other

:rofl: