The Ends Justify the Means?

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.

Ush> I hear you. But to me, saying that “we must do THIS evil to achieve this good end” can only be hypothetical. How can anyone know what the end will be?
“We must do this evil to ATTEMPT this end” sounds better. And it should be said this way.

Yes, the needs of the many outweighs the need of the few. But should it always be the case? And I fail to see what is has to do with “the end justifies the means”.

And back to the child: In what possible hypothetical scenario would that ever be needed?

Originally posted by The Omega
And back to the child: In what possible hypothetical scenario would that ever be needed?

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.

Cyclops> I do understand what you want to ask. But you must also understand my viewpoint. I cannot see how it would ever be a real scenario that one child should be killed to rid the world of all disease. By being so absolute in it’s non-realism it’s not a question that can be answered.

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

Reborn again> It’s like the old “If you could travel back in time, would you kill Adolf Hitler before he rose to power. And therefore committed any acts of evil?”

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?

Originally posted by H.M.Servant
exept for the one innocent child

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?

Originally posted by Syren
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

"I am not a crook"

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.