Poll: The End Justifies The Means...

[mongolloid]

Do you guys agree with that? Would you guys be comfortable with, for example, isolating everyone who has HIV on an island to die, just so that we can get rid of HIV once and for all? (I know, the problem with this is that we don't know everyone who has HIV is, but just assume that we do.)

There are other examples of such problems which could theoretically be solved by such means, but that is the only one I could think of off the top of my head.

 

[Pendragon9]

No. The ends never justify the means.

 

[APPCRASH]

Depends on the situation. Positive results don't always justify a negative process.

 

[wrecker77]

No. Like you said with your hiv island theory. Making the world a better place by simply killing off thousands of people does not make the world a better place.

 

[Jedoro]

I have my scale of good-neutral-evil, and I could never harm someone who was neutral or good.

 

[Woodsey]

What so it's everything or nothing?

In some cases yes and in some cases no. Anyone who blankets every single decision made possible with whether the ends justifies the means with a "yes it is right" or "no it isn't" are very silly indeed.

 

[AkJay]

Well, HIV and AIDS started with monkeys, so shouldn't we kill all the monkeys (and people) with HIV?

 

[katsa5]

If one of those HIV victims was my raped friend (hypothetically) or my brother, I would be sooooo against it.
As for the logic itself, simply, I wouldn't want anyone to use that against me. So why should I against anything or anyone else?

 

[ProfessorLayton]

No. Like you said with your hiv island theory. Making the world a better place by simply killing off thousands of people does not make the world a better place.

It's not killing them. It's isolating them, although it's still not technically isolating them completely because there's still people there. Then, it's impossible for the disease to spread. Of course, this is still a hard decision to make.

 

[Ambitious Sloth]

This goes into a shady realm of moral code that really depends on the typre of person but here's a more classic example of what you asking.

Situation 1:
Your standing by a set of train tracks watching four men work on the railroad track when a train comes around the corner heading for the men. You can't shout or warn them or anything all you can do is watch... or act. next to you is a switch which if you pull it the train will change direction and will miss the four men but it will hit different large man working on the tracks going away from the men. Would you pull the switch?

Situation 2:
Your standing on a bridge that goes over the same set of train tracks looking at the four people working on the tracks when a train comes from around a corner and heads towards the four workers. This time next to you on the bridge is the large man and you know that if you push him off you could stop the train. Would you push him off?

Most people would pull the switch without hesitation but they wouldn't push the man off the bridge. It shows how strange our moral system is.

 

[beddo]

Do you guys agree with that? Would you guys be comfortable with, for example, isolating everyone who has HIV on an island to die, just so that we can get rid of HIV once and for all? (I know, the problem with this is that we don't know everyone who has HIV is, but just assume that we do.)

There are other examples of such problems which could theoretically be solved by such means, but that is the only one I could think of off the top of my head.

The ends to not always justify the means. It is not acceptable to act in an unethical manner to achieve something which may be thought as good overall or in the long run.

However, if the ends are world peace and the means are getting rid of all guns then I can't see a problem.

Concerning your example, it's flawed. We don't know exactly where it came from and it could spring up again so your solution is at best temporary and doesn't account for future prevention. Given how unethical it is it's not justifiable.

There are much better ways of stopping the spread of HIV and AIDS; education. If people were chaste until marriage (or civil partnership) and then faithful the spread would be significantly reduced. We'd also not forget about it as a problem and wouldn't hastily ignore the importance of prevention.

Also, what makes this illness so much worse than any other thing that affects the poeople? if you want to save lives then get rid of weapons, private vehicular transport and so on.

 

[arc101]

The ends never EVER justify the means, as by that you give anyone the right to do anything as long as it is for a 'reason'. Do you allow acts of terrorism to occur becasue it is inline with their religion?
(also, i swear i have commented on this before...search bar...)

 

[Akai Shizuku]

The ends never justify the means. 'Nuff said.

 

[falcon1985]

Do you guys agree with that? Would you guys be comfortable with, for example, isolating everyone who has HIV on an island to die, just so that we can get rid of HIV once and for all? (I know, the problem with this is that we don't know everyone who has HIV is, but just assume that we do.)

Isn't this what Hitler tried to do with the jews? (I understand the above is not your personal view, so no offense intended, just saying...)

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

No. The ends never justify the means.

Hey, looks like we resolved this one in one post. Props to everyone.

Your HIV "solution" makes me sick.

 

[Skeleon]

I consider myself a Utilitarian, however, this approach only works when applying the corrective principle which protects human rights.
Every decision has to be judged individually.
Are these HIV-infected people's human rights limited by banishing them to some far away isle?
Yes, definitely, and in a very powerful way.
Therefore, in your particular example, the end doesn't justify the means.

 

[IHaveNoCoolness]

Dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended WWII, but it killed thousands of civilians, but saved the lives of many soldiers. Does that make killing non-combatants okay because you're protecting your own soldiers?

 

[Mozared]

No. Like you said with your hiv island theory. Making the world a better place by simply killing off thousands of people does not make the world a better place.

Why not? If I'd kill 90% of the world population and you and me weren't included we'd have a seriously nice life abusing all the resources the dead 90% no longer needs.

As an answer to the OP; like people have said, it depends - on the means and the end.