Do the ends justify the means?

This is a general discussion thread but I also thought I'd throw a question in here just for my curiosity and to provoke conversation.

So do the ends justify the means and if so when and to what extent?

For instance, lets say any/every individual hero were giving the chance to save everyone and end all wrong disease and suffering by killing the person they loved most.
Would it be worth it and who would be willing to do it?

Captain America
Batman
Superman
Spiderman
Wolverine
Hellboy
Spawn
Daredevil
Ironman
The Black Panther
Kyle Rayner
Thor
Wonder Woman
Hulk
Flash
Punisher
Nightwing
Black Adam
Captain Marvel
Namor
Reed
Hawkeye
Green Arrow
Martian Manhunter
Silver Surfer
Black Bolt

just to name a few!

And if that's acceptable where does it end and when does the price out weigh the reward?

Captain America - Too old fashioned in values
Batman - Will see the greater good is not interfearing with nature etc.
Superman - Probably would.
Spiderman - Not with the Uncle Ben guilt trip keeping him going all these years
Wolverine - 50/50
Hellboy - 50/50
Spawn - Been there done that in a sense nothing really changed made things worse.
Daredevil - 50/50 could be swayed.
Ironman - Yeah
The Black Panther - Not sure
Kyle Rayner - Probably not after the whole Ion thing and Major Force
Thor - Wouldn't want to interfear again
Wonder Woman - Probably would el oh el Max Lord.
Hulk - Too selfish
Flash - Not after the speech he gave Zoom when Zoom wanted him to do the same
Punisher - Yeah probably would believe he's doing the right thing
Nightwing- Would uphold Bruce's values of not interfearing with the natural way of things
Black Adam - Yes
Captain Marvel - No
Namor - Only if benefitted his people lol
Reed - No
Hawkeye - Probably not
Green Arrow - No
Martian Manhunter - No
Silver Surfer - No
Black Bolt - 50/50

Silver Surfer - no?

He's pretty much given up his entire life - twice - once for his own planet, but then again for the Earth.

Originally posted by Soljer
Silver Surfer - no?

He's pretty much given up his entire life - twice - once for his own planet, but then again for the Earth.

Are you saying that the person Silver Surfer loves the most is... himself? 😱

Then again remember the adventures on earth Surfer had and healed that blind girl etc. Soljer is right he probably would and if it was Hal Jordan instead of Kyle Rayner on that list Hal would be a yes too.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Are you saying that the person Silver Surfer loves the most is... himself? 😱

No, I'm saying he seems the type to accept sacrifice, and he definitely seems to be an 'ends justify the means' type.

By "saving the world," do you mean like if Galactus were taking the world hostage and the heroes are each given that choice or do you just mean that whole "suffering, wrong, and disease" thing would disappear?

If it's the latter, I'm not sure if I see any one doing it really. Almost every one there lives off the code of never taking a life, even if it's one of their biggest villains. They'd probably just do what they've been doing all this time and do what they can to save as many people as they can on a daily basis.

Originally posted by Soljer
No, I'm saying he seems the type to accept sacrifice, and he definitely seems to be an 'ends justify the means' type.

Originally posted by Accel
Yeah, but there's a big difference between sacrificing yourself and the one you love most. Surfer sacrificed himself the first time just so every one he loved could live.

And its the whole enchilada. All suffering of the innocent will end and its guaranteed somehow without another catch. Just have to kill the one they love.

You say they'd keep doing what they do to save as many people as possible. Well this certainly covers that completely I'd say. And really think about this. I mean I truly love my mom probably more than anyone else on the planet but if killing her would save everyone and everything form all suffering then I'd definitely kill her. Probably couldn't live with myself after and would soon follow with suicide but I'd realise the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. Or the one!

You're talking about people who, for the most part, wouldn't even kill their worst enemies unless it was absolutely necessary and you'd expect them to all of a sudden kill the ones they love most?

Take Batman for instance. He knows that if he just ended Joker's life, then there wouldn't be so many casualties caused by Joker. Yet he still lets Joker live because he can't possibly go down that path. So of course he's not going to kill the one he loves most to basically accomplish the same thing.

It's the same for everyone else. Superman's not going to kill Lois, Spider-Man's not going to kill Mary Jane, Black Bolt's not going to kill Medusa. Hell, even a hardcore guy like Black Adam wouldn't kill Isis if he had this choice to make.

It's not like the whole world is drowning in so much pain that these guys would change their values when they know they can do whatever they can to help every one without resorting to killing. Sure, there's bad in the world, but that doesn't mean that people can't learn to handle themselves with the problems they are dealt with.

Originally posted by Accel
You're talking about people who, for the most part, wouldn't even kill their worst enemies unless it was absolutely necessary and you'd expect them to all of a sudden kill the ones they love most?

Take Batman for instance. He knows that if he just ended Joker's life, then there wouldn't be so many casualties caused by Joker. Yet he still lets Joker live because he can't possibly go down that path. So of course he's not going to kill the one he loves most to basically accomplish the same thing.

It's the same for everyone else. Superman's not going to kill Lois, Spider-Man's not going to kill Mary Jane, Black Bolt's not going to kill Medusa. Hell, even a hardcore guy like Black Adam wouldn't kill Isis if he had this choice to make.

It's not like the whole world is drowning in so much pain that these guys would change their values when they know they can do whatever they can to help every one without resorting to killing. Sure, there's bad in the world, but that doesn't mean that people can't learn to handle themselves with the problems they are dealt with.

Totally agree.

In short = does the end justify the means? No 😐

Originally posted by willRules
Totally agree.

In short = does the end justify the means? No 😐

For instance. Lets say somehow an innocent person has been used to incubate the ultimate virus. And within 24 hours it'll release from their blood stream into the environment. They won't die form it themselves but unless they're killed before the 24 hours is up half the world's population will die and for whatever reason there is no way to contain the virus.

Should they be allowed to live at the expense of half the world?

Yes.

The ends justify the means.

Always.

Originally posted by Entity
But is it never okay to do something wrong in order to do something much more right?

For instance. Lets say somehow an innocent person has been used to incubate the ultimate virus. And within 24 hours it'll release from their blood stream into the environment. They won't die form it themselves but unless they're killed before the 24 hours is up half the world's population will die and for whatever reason there is no way to contain the virus.

Should they be allowed to live at the expense of half the world?

The thing is, that's pretty much the whole "the world is in danger of imminent doom" thing I mentioned earlier where the sacrifice is much more necessary since billions of lives are at stake under one threat. Your original scenario- which had the idea that killing someone you loved most just so that there would be no more violence, robbery, drugs, or whatever in the world we already live in- is absolutely nothing like that.

Really, it would be more selfish for the rest of the world to demand that any one person to kill his/her loved one just so the world can be a utopia instead of saving every one's lives.

Originally posted by Entity
But is it never okay to do something wrong in order to do something much more right?

For instance. Lets say somehow an innocent person has been used to incubate the ultimate virus. And within 24 hours it'll release from their blood stream into the environment. They won't die form it themselves but unless they're killed before the 24 hours is up half the world's population will die and for whatever reason there is no way to contain the virus.

Should they be allowed to live at the expense of half the world?

There isn't a right option there, just two wrong ones. In that scenario I'd have to regretfully go with the option that kills the least number of people ✅

Originally posted by Citizen V
Yes.

The ends justify the means.

Always.

We can all imagine a scenario where we'd kill, regardless of our beliefs. Example:

All of existence will be tortured brutally for 6 millenia, then killed and erased from the timestream...unless you kill a convicted rapist, serial killer, and arsonist. Here's the gun.

We'd all do it. And so would the heroes....I hope every one on that list.

I do that to illustrate this point: It is possible to construct a scenario where the ends justify the means. So that means that there are cases where killing is justified, and the problem becomes drawing the line. And no one can answer that harder problem, because it becomes relative to the situation.

I just have a problem with absolutist dogma (heroes or real-world) that advocates total and utter compliance with a non-killing policy. My scenario will never happen, but it's equally as unlikely that there will never be a situation where killing is justified.

I usually err on the side of pacifism and non-violence, and would kill well after many of the heroes listed. But there is and should be cases where killing is fine.