POLL: "The ends justify the means."

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Amytime I've approached a problem from the supposition that the ends justify the means, I was left with the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means.

You just have to keep thinking about cases where the ends are more and more benefitial and the means are less and less harmless. Eventually you'll get a case where you would feel the ends do justify the means.

The classic example is the husband/wife example. The wife (who is just a little chubby in the rear) puts on a pair of tight pants and asks "is my butt look too big?". The husband in most cases should say "no" - even if it is a lie. The ends (a happy wife who is proud of her husband overlooking a minor appearance flaw and resulting in a long healthy marriage) justifies the means (a little white lie).

My favorite example though is something along the lines of life saving. I personally feel no one should be cruel to animals. I personally feel provoking animals into a frenzy where they start attacking is animal cruelty. So person (out for fun) taunting a dog until it attacks is against my morals. Now apply the situation to a poisonous snake in a anti-toxin creation lab. They taunt the snake, provoke it to attack, collect its venim, and use it to save a dozen people from deadly snake attacks. Even though it is against my morals, I support it. The ends (a dozen peoples lives saved) justifies the means (temporary cruelty to an animal).

Of course these are all person by person examples. Everyone's value system will vary so the answer will vary with each person. Some people will feel animal cruelty isn't a problem so they look at my last example and think it is silly. I personally love animals and think cruelty is a major concern, but the ends justify the means in that case.

 

[pennylane]

My answer: it depends.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Amused
"The end does not justify the means. No one's rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others."

is that a categorical imperative ?

anyway, I think the concept of "rights" as naturally existing is a bit of fallacy (though freedom is a natural principle). The truth is that in any functional state, rights and freedoms are sacrificed for an end (a greater good usually). "The Politics" explicates this a lot better than I can.

Polarized "always/never" answers are seldom correct.

 

[Vic]

False. Always false.

If the means require justification, that justification cannot be found in the ends.
For example, on one side of the argument, one could argue that getting rich (ends) justifies committing crimes (means). In all cases, people would think this argument false.
On the other side, someone could argue that providing luxuries for his family (ends) justifies working long hours on a job he hates and makes him miserable (means). Some might think this true, but I would still find it false because I think one has to consider the life of a child brought up in such an environment. What is more important: the X-box and the fancy house, or having a loving, happy father who is there for the child?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Vic
False. Always false.

If the means require justification, that justification cannot be found in the ends.
For example, on one side of the argument, one could argue that getting rich (ends) justifies committing crimes (means). In all cases, people would think this argument false.
On the other side, someone could argue that providing luxuries for his family (ends) justifies working long hours on a job he hates and makes him miserable (means). Some might think this true, but I would still find it false because I think one has to consider the life of a child brought up in such an environment. What is more important: the X-box and the fancy house, or having a loving, happy father who is there for the child?

no, it's not always false at all. as your example clearly illustrates, it *always* depends on your values.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Vic
False. Always false.

If the means require justification, that justification cannot be found in the ends.
For example, on one side of the argument, one could argue that getting rich (ends) justifies committing crimes (means). In all cases, people would think this argument false.
On the other side, someone could argue that providing luxuries for his family (ends) justifies working long hours on a job he hates and makes him miserable (means). Some might think this true, but I would still find it false because I think one has to consider the life of a child brought up in such an environment. What is more important: the X-box and the fancy house, or having a loving, happy father who is there for the child?

always false???

How about the abdication of freedom (means) in order to secure the safety of the state (ends)?

How about sacrifing the lives of soldiers (means) in order to stop genocide (ends)?

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
If you were to think of every possible situation that you could, and applied the above statement to it... Would it be true more often than not?

what kind of question is that? how would we be able to even come close to answering that?

situation 1: i pillaged and razed a small fishing village because they catch salmon and i dont like salmon
situation 2: i killed osama and his lt.'s because they threatend our freedom

its totally relative to the situation

 

[Vic]

I thought the question was about values? Do I have to preface my every post with "IMO"??

Isaac, your first example - false. But not due to this argument but because there has never been any evidence that sacrificing freedoms has ever made a society more secure. In fact, in some cases (like "gun control"), many would argue that the opposite is true, that granting citizens MORE freedoms promotes the security of the state.

Your second - aren't soldiers usually the ones committing the genocide?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Amused
"The end does not justify the means. No one's rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others."

Gotta be Rand. And I agree. Though Rand and I would disagree violently on the source of those rights come.

ZV

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Kill one thousand babies for the stem cells to save Christopher Reeves?


I didn't think so..

EDIT: spelled de ole man's name wong.

What if it wasn't to save Reeves, but to cure all genetic disorders, improve the general health of the population (so there are no obesity), and extend the average life span by 200%. Not saying this can happen, but if you're goign to pose a bias question, what do you expect to get but a bias answer? It's one of the oldest fallacy (strawman).

 

[Slammy1]

I'd agree it's a case by case, but it takes a certain arrogance to assume the end will be what's expected. Surely, killing one to save a thousand would seem a rational decision, but who would decide? What if the one were a young Einstein, or a Pasteur and killing the one dooms millions that might be saved through their inventiveness? In the end I do not think any problem can be approached in that manner, you simply have to deal with each action by judging the morality irrespective of the consequnces. It's how I try to live my life, but at times I do fall short.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Vic
I thought the question was about values? Do I have to preface my every post with "IMO"??

Isaac, your first example - false. But not due to this argument but because there has never been any evidence that sacrificing freedoms has ever made a society more secure. In fact, in some cases (like "gun control"), many would argue that the opposite is true, that granting citizens MORE freedoms promotes the security of the state.

Your second - aren't soldiers usually the ones committing the genocide?

"There's no evidence???" Assuming you're not a chilean gorilla fighter, you probably live in a flourishing society based on the abidcation of freedom. Taxation is a prime example. It's not a voluntary contribution, it's the state directly taking your time (and therefore your freedom). The rule of law is an even more important abdication. Living in the united states means you are subject to (perhaps arbitrary) laws that may not reflect your values.

As far as the second example, there are lots of examples that go either way. Regardless, stopping the mass extinction of jews, was IMO, more than enough justification for the death of many soldiers.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Vic
False. Always false.

If the means require justification, that justification cannot be found in the ends.
For example, on one side of the argument, one could argue that getting rich (ends) justifies committing crimes (means). In all cases, people would think this argument false.
On the other side, someone could argue that providing luxuries for his family (ends) justifies working long hours on a job he hates and makes him miserable (means). Some might think this true, but I would still find it false because I think one has to consider the life of a child brought up in such an environment. What is more important: the X-box and the fancy house, or having a loving, happy father who is there for the child?

always false???

How about the abdication of freedom (means) in order to secure the safety of the state (ends)?

How about sacrifing the lives of soldiers (means) in order to stop genocide (ends)?

Both of those involve willing participants. As such, they are not relevant. People are free to choose their states (and I would argue that anyone who give up freedom for safety is acting out of pure fear and is not thinking beyond immediate survival. Not a way to live.

Even if we were to consider a conscripted army, providing that the conscription were done in a fair manner then there is no conflict between ends and means.

Means which are inherently unfair or immoral cannot generate pure ends.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Vic
False. Always false.

If the means require justification, that justification cannot be found in the ends.
For example, on one side of the argument, one could argue that getting rich (ends) justifies committing crimes (means). In all cases, people would think this argument false.
On the other side, someone could argue that providing luxuries for his family (ends) justifies working long hours on a job he hates and makes him miserable (means). Some might think this true, but I would still find it false because I think one has to consider the life of a child brought up in such an environment. What is more important: the X-box and the fancy house, or having a loving, happy father who is there for the child?

no, it's not always false at all. as your example clearly illustrates, it *always* depends on your values.

That only applies if you subscribe to ethical relativism. And relativism is a very nice "feel-good" idea, but it's piss-poor morally.

ZV

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Vic
False. Always false.

If the means require justification, that justification cannot be found in the ends.
For example, on one side of the argument, one could argue that getting rich (ends) justifies committing crimes (means). In all cases, people would think this argument false.
On the other side, someone could argue that providing luxuries for his family (ends) justifies working long hours on a job he hates and makes him miserable (means). Some might think this true, but I would still find it false because I think one has to consider the life of a child brought up in such an environment. What is more important: the X-box and the fancy house, or having a loving, happy father who is there for the child?

no, it's not always false at all. as your example clearly illustrates, it *always* depends on your values.

That only applies if you subscribe to ethical relativism. And relativism is a very nice "feel-good" idea, but it's piss-poor morally.

ZV

who decides whats moral?

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
I'd agree it's a case by case, but it takes a certain arrogance to assume the end will be what's expected. Surely, killing one to save a thousand would seem a rational decision, but who would decide? What if the one were a young Einstein, or a Pasteur and killing the one dooms millions that might be saved through their inventiveness? In the end I do not think any problem can be approached in that manner, you simply have to deal with each action by judging the morality irrespective of the consequnces. It's how I try to live my life, but at times I do fall short.

now this is a terrific answer. Nonetheless, I think sometimes the answer is to look at probablistic outcomes (see also: "fooled by randomness"). I do think we can make ethical decisions that are based on ends/means equations. The problem is that most popular examples of grand "end/means" decisions that come to mind are rhetorical in nature, rather than the result of well calculated probabilistic thinking.

 

[Konigin]

No, it cannot apply to any situation.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Vic
False. Always false.

If the means require justification, that justification cannot be found in the ends.
For example, on one side of the argument, one could argue that getting rich (ends) justifies committing crimes (means). In all cases, people would think this argument false.
On the other side, someone could argue that providing luxuries for his family (ends) justifies working long hours on a job he hates and makes him miserable (means). Some might think this true, but I would still find it false because I think one has to consider the life of a child brought up in such an environment. What is more important: the X-box and the fancy house, or having a loving, happy father who is there for the child?

always false???

How about the abdication of freedom (means) in order to secure the safety of the state (ends)?

How about sacrifing the lives of soldiers (means) in order to stop genocide (ends)?

Both of those involve willing participants. As such, they are not relevant. People are free to choose their states (and I would argue that anyone who give up freedom for safety is acting out of pure fear and is not thinking beyond immediate survival. Not a way to live.

Even if we were to consider a conscripted army, providing that the conscription were done in a fair manner then there is no conflict between ends and means.

Means which are inherently unfair or immoral cannot generate pure ends.

ZV

I don't know. I suppose people who engage in actions deemed "crime" by legislation that does not represent their morality are not victims of what you view as true "ends/means morality" when they're imprisoned. By not leaving the country they're implicitly consenting to the authority of the system. But isn't the system itself utilitarian (rather than based on objective morality)? Pragmatically, it doesn't really matter where you go, you'll always be subject to authority, so I don't think "consent of the goverened" makes state utilitarianism irrlevant.

 

[Slammy1]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Slammy1
I'd agree it's a case by case, but it takes a certain arrogance to assume the end will be what's expected. Surely, killing one to save a thousand would seem a rational decision, but who would decide? What if the one were a young Einstein, or a Pasteur and killing the one dooms millions that might be saved through their inventiveness? In the end I do not think any problem can be approached in that manner, you simply have to deal with each action by judging the morality irrespective of the consequnces. It's how I try to live my life, but at times I do fall short.

now this is a terrific answer. Nonetheless, I think sometimes the answer is to look at probablistic outcomes (see also: "fooled by randomness"). I do think we can make ethical decisions that are based on ends/means equations. The problem is that most popular examples of grand "end/means" decisions that come to mind are rhetorical in nature, rather than the result of well calculated probabilistic thinking.

Life is merely a series of low probability events. From the perspective of the beginning of time, what would be the odds of us having this conversation. Something inexpressible except in terms of infinity.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Life is merely a series of low probability events. From the perspective of the beginning of time, what would be the odds of us having this conversation. Something inexpressible except in terms of infinity.

yes well, the ability to predict something 30 billions years in the future is not something I would bet on with my life.

On the other hand, there's fairly good predictive value to probability when you're talking about, for example, becoming either a street sweeper or a dentist. Probabilistically, becoming a dentist is quite likely to land you in the upper middle class, while becoming a street sweeper is fairly likely to land you in the lower middle class/working poor demographic.

 

[Slammy1]

I'm not saying it should stop you from acting, merely that it does not justify the actions. I had 3 foster sisters growing up. Their father raped them, the older ones numerous times. Removing them from their family was a logical thing to do, but the ends are not the justification. Only history is the proper judge of the correctness of the response.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
I'm not saying it should stop you from acting, merely that it does not justify the actions. I had 3 foster sisters growing up. Their father raped them, the older ones numerous times. Removing them from their family was a logical thing to do, but the ends are not the justification. Only history is the proper judge of the correctness of the response.

I can agree that in many cases, the ends are not justification. However, I do think in some cases, even when the outcome is unfavorable, the probabilistic ends, justify the means. It is probably rare to find a dilemma with both adequate drama and predictability on an individual level. On a more grand scale though, I think this is a very applicable principle.

Slightly OT, what's weird about this thing is that there are so many different levels of morality that can conflict. In the end, I think it's nearly impossible to successfully argue for categorical imperatives (especially of the "natural" kind).

 

[Vic]

I will agree that there a practical applications where the ends justify the means. For example, I'm willing to sit in the dentist chair and suffer a root canal because I know that the alternative is worse. I'm willing to pay taxes in certain cases because I know, once again, that the alternative means unsafe and unpaved streets, making the taxes money well spent.
It's the moral applications that I don't agree with. Perhaps I wasn't clear or didn't understand the question properly before.

 

[Miramonti]

A bad decision that works out is still a bad decision.

A good decision that doesn't work out is still a good decision.

The end never justifies the means.

 

[Konig]

Trying to come up with a statement like ?one life for the lives of many? or ?cheat on a test to pass it? constrains the subject too tightly given that different people place a different value on life, cheating, etc.

Here is a great way to sum it up: If the ?means? would violate your own belief of what is wrong, then is not worth the ?ends.?

If it doesn't, then there is no issue - for yourself at least. Society may have a different opinion if you are caught.