Poll: The End Justifies The Means...

[Dusty Donuts]

Yes, if the end has greater positive effect then the means negetive effect

Example: If a country had something buried underneath it that would let us become the most powerfull species in the universe but we had to kill everyone there to use it, in this case the end justify's the means.

Not really. Technically, we ARE already the most powerful species on the planet. We certainly kill more sharks, bears, lions and all those other big beasties that could murder us in one swipe or bite. And, there certainly aren't any humans "Close To Extinction". Do the animals need 100 groups to help protect humans from dying out? No.
As for the UNIVERSE. Who needs that kind of power. Why would we need that kind of power, and why would anyone kill everyone living there to get it. Sure, we'll run out of resources. Sure, we'll all die sometime. But guess whose fault that is? Us, we get ourselves sick by not taking care of ourselves, we wasted the world's resources until it was too late and we finally sat up and took notice and we are the people who caused massive pollution and possibly, the greenhouse effect. The ends certainly don't justify the means in this situation because it was us who created the situation, a large negative in itself. Unless, we don't need to be the most powerful species in the universe, and consequently, that object can stay wherever it is, or be destroyed. Alien invasion? Surely the people living there would give it up to save lives, but aliens? We barely have the slightest proof they exist at all.
Let's face it, the negatives outweigh the positives on this one, and it certainly didn't need all this explanation to do it.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Yes, I'm quite the Machiavelli fanboy

 

[PurpleRain]

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.

It's a vague question you're asking. It, like all things, have variables that will go to the resulting answer. I think you have to realize this.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The ends rarely justify the means in extreme situations such as that.

 

[mongolloid]

Yes, I'm quite the Machiavelli fanboy

good job remembering who came up with this. I had just learned about his philosophies in my European History class the day I posted this thread

 

[Pimppeter2]

Yes, I'm quite the Machiavelli fanboy

good job remembering who came up with this. I had just learned about his philosophies in my European History class the day I posted this thread

Hahah. Are you in Ap European History by chance?

Anyway, if you listen close in Saints Row 1, the Repbulican Radio station thing has a funny section about him

 

[mongolloid]

Yes, I'm quite the Machiavelli fanboy

good job remembering who came up with this. I had just learned about his philosophies in my European History class the day I posted this thread

Hahah. Are you in Ap European History by chance?

Anyway, if you listen close in Saints Row 1, the Repbulican Radio station thing has a funny section about him

yea, i actually am. I'm in my sophomore year in high school, so yea, its one of the two advance classes im taking, next to pre-cal

 

[MajoraPersona]

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.

Making the world a better place does not make the world a better place?

Life isn't supposed to be good, because all life requires the deterence or elimination of other life. Human beings are just the weird ones.