POLL: "The ends justify the means."

[MercenaryForHire]

Too generic a situation. Needs Results option.

Edit - BTW, I read your edit. Still going to flip-flop based on specifics.

- M4H

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: 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.

Look, the problem is that things aren't always so cut and dry. Sometimes morals compete. This was the downfall for Kant and remains the downfall of all moral objectivism. Sometimes the means may violate a belief, but the ends will prevent an impending violation several times greater of another belief . These competing interests need to be weighed in order to find the most utilitarian action.

 

[SickBeast]

Wow...31% of people here think that the ends justify the means. What is this world coming to?

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Wow...31% of people here think that the ends justify the means. What is this world coming to?

The end?

 

[StageLeft]

No.

 

[her209]

does the means justify the ends?

 

[Konig]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: 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.

Look, the problem is that things aren't always so cut and dry. Sometimes morals compete. This was the downfall for Kant and remains the downfall of all moral objectivism. Sometimes the means may violate a belief, but the ends will prevent an impending violation several times greater of another belief . These competing interests need to be weighed in order to find the most utilitarian action.

It is that cut and dry when someone believes in absolute truth and has the fortitude to stick by their morals no matter what. I'm not saying it doesn?t lead to tough decisions, but tough decisions are what this thread is all about. Example: You get a report that Bin Laden is hiding out in a Pakistani school house where they are training children to be future terrorists. He is going to slip away again if you send commandos in to get him. The only option is not to act or bomb the school.

Now you have a choice. If you choose to bomb the school then you believe the ends (ridding the world of OBL) justify the means (killing potentially innocent children). My only issue with this is: How do you quantify how many children is it a reasonable to kill in order to get to OBL? Personally I?d say none. Putting a value on human life is not something man should do (unfortunately we do it every day). The same scenario could be applied to any ends/means debate. It would be tough and tempting, but I like to think I would stand by my beliefs no matter what the consequences are and act with honor.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Yes.

So its OK to cheat to make sure you graduate on time?

OF COURSE.

It's also OK to cheat just to make sure you graduate (at all).

Hell, cheating is OK all around as far I'm concerned, as long as you are smart and can still get a good understanding of the material by cheating. The whole point of school is learning. If you just copy and turn in, you are stupid. If you copy/think/try to understand/figure it out/turn it in, you are not much worse off learning wise than if you did it yourself, but there is a lot less stress on your end.

ebaycj

 

[isaacmacdonald]

It is that cut and dry when someone believes in absolute truth and has the fortitude to stick by their morals no matter what. I'm not saying it doesn?t lead to tough decisions, but tough decisions are what this thread is all about. Example: You get a report that Bin Laden is hiding out in a Pakistani school house where they are training children to be future terrorists. He is going to slip away again if you send commandos in to get him. The only option is not to act or bomb the school.

Now you have a choice. If you choose to bomb the school then you believe the ends (ridding the world of OBL) justify the means (killing potentially innocent children). My only issue with this is: How do you quantify how many children is it a reasonable to kill in order to get to OBL? Personally I?d say none. Putting a value on human life is not something man should do (unfortunately we do it every day). The same scenario could be applied to any ends/means debate. It would be tough and tempting, but I like to think I would stand by my beliefs no matter what the consequences are and act with honor.

That doesn't seem like that much of a dilemma, because the consequences of inaction do not clearly compete morally. It's possible to list endless hypotheticals, but the end result will always be this:

The only rational way to have absolute morals (that means you will never do anything that violates these principles), is to be able to guarantee that these morals will never compete. Otherwise when absolutes meet, you're going to have a problem. People are going to suffer, they are going to die, and they are going to be innocent (eg: collateral damage).

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Sadly I had to vote true. From what I have seen during my lifetime most people preach that the ends do not justify the means but do the exact opposite.

I disagree. Most of the richest and successful people I know are the most honest, hardworking, spirtual and benevolent people while losers are mean, cheaters, liars, loudmouth punks. There are exceptions and I'm mainly talking reputable business people, scientists, salts of the earth types, doctors and dentists etc. Not Don lupre. Anyway life is so easy if you lead a straight up life in my experiance being on both sides on the "tracks".

 

[Konig]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

That doesn't seem like that much of a dilemma, because the consequences of inaction do not clearly compete morally. It's possible to list endless hypotheticals, but the end result will always be this:

The only rational way to have absolute morals (that means you will never do anything that violates these principles), is to be able to guarantee that these morals will never compete. Otherwise when absolutes meet, you're going to have a problem. People are going to suffer, they are going to die, and they are going to be innocent (eg: collateral damage).

I agree that there are endless hypothetical scenarios, but in what instance would morals conflict? The only one I can think of where morals directly compete would be: You don't believe in killing, but in order to stop a killer from killing you have to kill the killer. Then yes, in that instance one would have to act if there was no other way to subdue the killer before he/she strikes. The added twist of innocents in the line of fire really muddies the decision further. In the movie "collateral damage" Arny was out for revenge. That was a little different.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Konig

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

That doesn't seem like that much of a dilemma, because the consequences of inaction do not clearly compete morally. It's possible to list endless hypotheticals, but the end result will always be this:

The only rational way to have absolute morals (that means you will never do anything that violates these principles), is to be able to guarantee that these morals will never compete. Otherwise when absolutes meet, you're going to have a problem. People are going to suffer, they are going to die, and they are going to be innocent (eg: collateral damage).

I agree that there are endless hypothetical scenarios, but in what instance would morals conflict? The only one I can think of where morals directly compete would be: You don't believe in killing, but in order to stop a killer from killing you have to kill the killer. Then yes, in that instance one would have to act if there was no other way to subdue the killer before he/she strikes. The added twist of innocents in the line of fire really muddies the decision further. In the movie "collateral damage" Arny was out for revenge. That was a little different.

I wasn't referring to the retarded arnold flick. I was referring to real collateral damage that occurs in every single armed conflict of an appreciable scale. Stray bombs, shrapnel, stray bullets, and sometimes just a blast radius. Innocent people die because their lives are judged to be worth less than the benefits of whatever the action is (even when we're talking about missed targets, you have to keep in mind that the people in charge already expect a certain number of civilian casualties). That's utilitarianism in action baby.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

I finally submitted my answer to the poll. I'm shocked by how many people believe in absolute morality <shaking head>.