The Ends Justify the Means?

“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.”

But far more often the needs of the many are trampled upon, to ensure the few. An example is how pharmaceutical companies refuse to sell cheap version of AIDS-medicine to poor countries. The profits of the few – in this case –outweighs the need of the many.
Or companies moving to the far east to make more money, leaving a lot of unemployed in their wake.

And this “Killing one to save a million, or the whole planet.” It’s a hypothetical question. When – and where – would that really be a scenario?

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.

Originally posted by Predator 89
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.

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.

Shaber> Again you’re being purely hypothetical. In what real scenario would a small group of people suddenly turn up with a deadly disease, and which ruler would send them away? When – for example – has that ever happen?

Perhaps we should agree on what we mean by the question being raised here?
What "means" and what "ends" do we discuss?

Personally I say that "the end does never justify the means". Why? because you can never predict exactly what the end will be. You may be dead-wrong, or have overlooked certain factors or choices.
Remember "Minority Report"?

Yeah,

Spoiler:
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.

Cyclops> But who knows all aspects of the bigger picture?
And this “kill one child to rid the world of all illness” is just hypothetical. Tell me where that would ever really be the case.
It sounds more like brainwash to me – to make us BELIEVE we must accept certain evil means to achieve an end no one can foresee anyways.

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).

Originally posted by big gay kirk
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

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.

Originally posted by The Omega
Personally I say that "the end does never justify the means". Why? because you can never predict exactly what the end will be. You may be dead-wrong, or have overlooked certain factors or choices.

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.