Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The ends justify the means is a slogan for the belief that morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes. When do the ends justify the means or to what extent do the ends justify the means? At what point do we forego efficiency for the sake of humanity? There are usually no easy answers to these questions and completely stick to a 'yes' or 'no' doesn' t seem very realistic in today' s society.

awh..but it does.....it is 'no'. the end doesn't justify the means.
By that simple 'no' you can build actions and goals accordingly.

What if you had to kill one person to save the lives of millions?

IMO, thats a small sacrifice..........as long as its not me.

I believe that the ends do justify the means. Or rather, they can justify the means, if what is gained is more valuable than what is lost. lethargic rambler asks if you would kill one person to save a million; to save a million people, I see no problem in killing 999,999 others.

Depends on the circumstance. Killing one person to save a million others is justified. Killing a thousand innocent people to kill one killer is not, if that makes any sense the way I put it.

Depends, but most of the times it doesn't.

I'd kill all of you for ten sexy minutes with Silver Tears.






Wait, did I say that out loud?

Dream on Rambler!

This is one of the most misquoted sayings in the world, along with the old chestnut about money and evil... Macchiavelli said, "the good end justifies the means..." he was also of the opinion that "the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few..." Society today prides itself on providing the most good for the greatest number... which means that the needs of the few are often trampled upon... I urge everyone to read Watchmen (the comic)... a classic example of doing evil to do good... see whether you agree with Ozy or Rorschach... me, I'm a Rorschach man... we must do whatever is right, even if it leads to our destruction

If the means involved, say killing someone to save the entire world....then definitely. If the means involves stealing from a jewelry store to make your girlfriend happy, then no no2

^^^^

it depends on the situation like Soth said

ditto, I don't think I can add anything here because all my thoughts have been worded by others, but I agree with what Soth said.

And LR, you are ridiculously out of context sometimes, but funny

I'm glad you mention Macchiavelli (sp?) Some where in book "The Prince" he justifies the reasons for the "goods". I think to rephrase it would be something like this "The state comes first and put the rest aside". Meaning that commonwealth of the a state is more important than one person problem. When is a problem involving the "many" then it is important.

The "kill x people to save y others" thinking is almost never encountered in reality, where circumstance dictates, 99% of the time, the course of action.

It is really hard to say for me... if it were my choice and I knew that what I was doing was WRONG but the end result was ABSOLUTELY NESSISARY, I would still find it hard to do.Is the end certain? What happens if it doesn't work out the way that was planned? Then you are left with alot of bad means when the end as well was bad....

On the other hand if I were put in a position where I had to judge another on the same circumstances I would probally be more leniant, seeing as I have already seen the end and would be able to weigh the good against the bad.

I killing one person will save millions my answer is yes

If you say a good end justifies the means, then it could mean that there are two wrongs. the wrong done and the wrong action that has to be taken. So there two wrongs make a right. But that is not always the issue.
When you say a good end justifies the means then you are talking about the greater good. The problem of the greater good is that it is (ultimately) descided by the person who has the power to "the means" and therefor is just a form of control.
Morality doesn't come into play here IMO because it is a concept based on culture and belief. The good end justifies the means is in the end a slogan aimed at self preservation.

I must say I wouldn't object naughty

And I believe that a positive outcome for a good cause is justified. Example being the killing 1 person to save 99 people, but then it just makes you wonder is it the same to kill one extrememly good person (example someone who finds the cure for cancer) to save 99,99,99 people who may have cancer.

And now I have confused myself, so I'm sorry

dang that eye Lord Sloth has is creepy

I think that this is a question that for me is best answered on a case by case basis......

Good point Omega, how can killing one person save millions? If anybody can give a pluasible reason then we can discuss how a wrong can make a right.

Easy: if a small group of people had a virulently contagious disease, then a Machiavellian ruler would drive them away from their domain, killing them if necessary, to ensure that they didn't start an epidemic.

This could be the case with those carrying HIV, the Bubonic Plague and many others.

The ruler should not kill the people i agree to drive them away, and provide them with what is needed as long as saftey measures are allowed but as far as i'm concerned killing somone only because of things that they cannot control is a terrible thought. Besides there is always another choice, today we no longer need to worry about plagues and epidemics today Doctors kill the diseases not the people who carry them. If they can't be cured than scientists study ways to stop them.

To kill them is only the solution for those who believe that "the end justifies the means."

shaber keep in mind that the thread is wheather or not means justify ends i proved that they don't in your scenerio. There is always another choice always will. People who believe that means justify ends use it as an excuse to do cruel things in the name of good causes.

Don't be so sure that doctors will always be able to find a cure for any disease... Viruses and disease-causing bacteria are constantly evolving and changing. What works as a cure today may not work tommorrow. With tuburculosis, for example, in the 30's and 40's (I think), they had only treatment for it. This was a problem as there were a lot of people contracting the disease at that time, and eventually the nasty little critter who was causing it became immune.

Yeah, I couldn't stand the part where Cruise has the eye transplant. If he had a heart transplant that would have been fine

I have seen the intro to 28 Days Later extended edition that had the scenario down pat. In the real world, a ruler say of an African country might at some point in history have decided to kill all prostitutes carrying HIV. That may have stopped Africa having such high HIV levels. Circumstances have never led to this being a relevant issue but it wasn't always outside the limits of the possible. To endeavour to cure those who are infected already would involve a higher chance of an epidemic breaking out. However, going by the end justifying the means includes making alot of dubious moral compromises.

Swordfish (Travolta, Jackman, Barry) had a great conversation that I feel relates to this. Summary in one line:

"If you could cure all of the worlds diseases, but to do so you had to kill 1 innocent child. Would you do it?"

-> The Ends justifies the Means.
-> For the greater good.

These two statements walk hand and hand. The bigger picture is always more important.

exept for the one innocent child

Sacrafices must be made in order to progress.

Darth Revan I know not all diseases can be cured. What i meant was that by trying to help the ones with the disease the ruler would have made the moraly corect choice. Of course perhaps my meathod of looking at the scenario is not very realistic non the less i still believe its the right thing to do.

The need of the many outweights the need of the one or the few.

Does anyone know about the legal concept of necessity?

It is a permissible defence (although it is not yet a concrete area) in English criminal law when the evil avoided outweighs the evil done in its place (subject to a couple of other provisos).

I think the genius of that piece of art, and let us not forget that Watchmen is pure art, that everything can be viewed from a multitude of angles at any one time, to paraphrase Moore. I think I agreed with Ozy in theory but would have had to take the Rorschach view in practice.

Of course Ends can justify means. Anyone who broadly dismisses the concept is simply deceiving him or herself.

Society itself does it every day just by existing. People's freedoms are necessarily curtailed in order to create a society that benefits more than just the strong. It doesn't always work but the theory works just fine.

Every just war ever fought also falls into this category. Second World War is the obvious example. The Means of sending millions of young people out to die, and for each of them to have to kill others, are horiffic means indeed. But the Ends, to stop the world sliding into the despotism of the Imperialists who would have perpetuated far worse evils, justified it immensly. I am sure no-one needs further justification that the Allied Victory was a good thing; if you want to factor the Bomb out, look at Europe alone.

It is a term that can be easily mis-used but the concept is utterly sound.

That doesn't follow. That doesn't mean that Ends cannot Justify means, it means you think no-one should ever risk it.

Which I very much disagree with- people are fallible, so what? There are times when you have to TRY and do the right thing with the best judgment you can- but either way it does not invalidate the concept.

It also removes any conception of risk.

Omega, of course it is a hypothetical situation. It is an example of something that I feel very much summarizes my point. Much like Sword Point did... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Why do you think democracy works the way it does? The majority rule.

Just because I am saying that the ends justifies the means, doesn't mean that there was not an alternate route that could have been travelled. A man is judged not by what he is, but what he has done. Reputation, rumours, etc will always influence peoples prejudice. (Another topic for another time.)

Going back to my previous statement: even if you kill the one innocent child to cure all the worlds diseases, you are always going to be shunned for doing it. There would be too many people you wronged in the process.

If, by some stretch of imagination, by dissecting some innocent child you are able to find cures for all diseases, would it not be worth it? You are taking an innocent life (the Means) in order to wipe-out all of the diseases on earth (the End), would you not do that?

If the end justifies the means, then two wrongs make a right? But the Bible says "...you reap what you sow." So does a certain Karma come into play here? 'Humurabi's Code' states: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." If someone kills a member of your family, does it give you the legal right to "Do on to others as they would do onto you"? Society changes with the times. In the past, the end justifies the means may have reigned righteous, but the law dictates your FREEDOM is restricted to act. You have "the right to bare arms" according to the US Constitution, however you do not have a right to use them unless the end justifies the means. So thus we fall into an infinite circle.

However, if you knew that killing one child could save thousands, would you kill that child? A question to ponder indeed.

An interesting rebuttle, but that really does not pretain to this subject.

What I am trying to get at is by killing the child, you can save millions. However you have to kill off ONE innocent child.

Could you do that? Could you kill one person who does not deserve to die in order to save millions who do not deserve to die?

I have to say that here, I felt as if it was a contradiction. Which "one innocent child"? The 'one' that dies because nothing was done for fear of losing in the here and now, or the 'one' that dies for the greater result in the long run?

I will re-itterate my hypothetical sitaution once more... as Syren was not present for that. (Or just go get a copy of the movie Swordfish)

... you have the ability to cure ALL of the worlds diseases. However, in order to do that you must kill one innocent child. Could you kill that child?

let put it this way if you are dieing of thirst literally dieing
of thirst and there is a bottle of water 100 feet in x direction. there are two ways of getting there, walking strait there which involves steeping on and killing hundreds of Innocent snakes(the snakes wont harm you). or you can climb a tall latter walk across a rickety bridge which may break killing you, than climbing back down a latter on the other side which is the better choice?

choice A you wold be killing many Innocent snakes to save your life
choice B you would be risking your life to save your life

(even though the snakes wont harm you killing them may save other peoples life's that may get bit by the snakes in the future)

which is the better choice?

a better choice is normally concluded to what makes the participant feel better... as there's no universally sense of right or wrong...

it really depends how good the end is.. I mean you cant sacrifice lives and then have the end turn up short.. the end would have to be really something to make up for all of that.. plus on certain levels we have those who are satisfied with a little, and those that require alot to be satisfied.. so the ends being justified by the means can eventually become subjective to whomever/whatever they pertain to

It's very simple - to one individual a certain end will justify a certain means, to another, it won't. It's wholly subjective. There is no absolute rule which states which and which means justify and end.

ahhhhhhhhhh right

we have to figure out if you are going to sacrifice an innocent child to may or may not save 1000 innocent children in the distant future than can you take that gamble
if we were going to take that gamble than we would have to be sure to win
,

Originally posted by Storm
The ends justify the means is a slogan for the belief that morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes. When do the ends justify the means or to what extent do the ends justify the means? At what point do we forego efficiency for the sake of humanity? There are usually no easy answers to these questions and completely stick to a 'yes' or 'no' doesn' t seem very realistic in today' s society.

My twin sister believes this saying but not me I think it does not mean that it is the end.JM

back to the killing the baby example if you were to kill that baby to save 1000 people of sickness you would also be eliminating that branch of the babies family tree which would in turn stop 10's of thousands of people from being born in the first place

it could help the population problem though

Originally posted by the_raven75

back to the killing the baby example if you were to kill that baby to save 1000 people of sickness you would also be eliminating that branch of the babies family tree which would in turn stop 10's of thousands of people from being born in the first place

it could help the population problem though

Hardly, the population would grow more because you saved a 1000 people that could all get children but you don't know that.

And yes the end justifies the means, you can't talk about what end here, it has to be determined by the person that gets to make the choice themselves.

There is no universal right or wrong, holy goal or wothless goal. Earlier in this thread Hitler was mentioned as an example. To stop Hitler thousands of people had to die and the end justified the means in that situation at least that is what most people would say. But Hitler said the same thing, he thought that killing millions of innocents was a good thing, if it could help the world become a perfect place. The End justified the means for him too..

My point in all of that shit is that every person has to decide for himself, you can not say that your goal does and another goal does not. If you think that the goal you can achieve by doing something terrible is worth it then it is. If not its not.

I could kill one, or a few, to save the greater majority. But even this example must be a case-by-case decision. Perhaps the one child is of greater importance than the thousand his death could save. Or perhaps those thousand are rapists and murderers. But I think we have established that there are times when the ends can justify the means. You can only do what you think is right, and hope.

Originally posted by mechmoggy
What if you had to kill one person to save the lives of millions?

IMO, thats a small sacrifice..........as long as its not me.

I agree, like killing Hitler instead of allowing him to kill thousands of Jews and Catholics.

Originally posted by alcoholicpoet
I agree, like killing Hitler instead of allowing him to kill thousands of Jews and Catholics.

We all think we can do things under pressure...even imagine it....but when it comes down to the line....can you really.....

Originally posted by debbiejo
We all think we can do things under pressure...even imagine it....but when it comes down to the line....can you really.....

Yes, I find nothing hard about blowing off the head of off a mid 20th century tyrant.

What I mean is...if you had to chose between someone you knew to kill and many people to save.

Ouch that's tough, depends on how many ppl and how certain my info is.

the real question is, do your means need to be justified. remember, morals are for the WEAK.

justice is an ideal that was invented. if justice was a real physical force, everyone would have to live by it. but they dont. nothing you do has to be justified, since justice is a question of what is morally right or wrong. morals are nothing and hold no power, they were invented so that people could be controlled and forced to live the way other people wanted them to live. do not live under moral or principle or justice. live the way you want to live first, then worry about how you should treat other people if its really an issue with you.

it is not because we invent justice that it is a bad idea.

And every society creates rules to keep that society from destroying itself. If you want to be a member of a society you should learn to accept those rules.

i definitely dont want to be a member of society. society is stupid. society believes in superiority, that people are in a chain of command. i cant accept this since i know no one is better than me

I think it should be "The Means determinate the end", that why it come before the end. If you use a mean you reach an end, if you use another mean you reach another end. If you want a good end, you must use a good mean. But killing Hitler to prevent a bad ending, is a good thing for me, its not always a bad thing to kill people.

Killing is always wrong, even if prevents a greater evil. So it can be necessary, and it can be the correct course of action, but it is still wrong.

Could any of you honestly say that you could, if you had to, line ten innocent people up against a wall and shoot them, in order to save the innocent 1000?

Originally posted by Syren
Could any of you honestly say that you could, if you had to, line ten innocent people up against a wall and shoot them, in order to save the innocent 1000?

Good question!!

I couldn't do it, but I wouldn't stop it (that is the killing of the ten).

That's a good answer... not quite a cop out

I don't know if I could do it, unless it actually happens to me I guess I'll never know. But I don't envy the poor bastard who finds himself in such an unenviable position

I could do it. To know something objectively is to know it as the Force knows it. The sacrifice of ten to save a thousand is a net gain of 990.
But killing the ten is still wrong, though it is correct.

Originally posted by JediMusician
I could do it. To know something objectively is to know it as the Force knows it. The sacrifice of ten to save a thousand is a net gain of 990.
But killing the ten is still wrong, though it is correct.

I agree....though I'd have to close my eyes when I do it...and it would be really hard.....But it would depend on the situation....cause I had a really hard time killing a mean rooster 2 years ago....City girls aren't used to killing roosters....

Originally posted by Syren
Could any of you honestly say that you could, if you had to, line ten innocent people up against a wall and shoot them, in order to save the innocent 1000?

^ This presumes that the value of human life is quantifiable; this begs the question, "what if the the value of the ten is greater than the value of the 1,000," and so forth.