Poll: The End Justifies The Means...

[Macgyvercas]

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

QFT. If it involves a serious mass breach of human rights, I'm against it.

 

[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.

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.

Think about that.

Your killing off 90% percent of the world!

I dont know you personaly but I couldnt live with that on my concience.

Also, I dont think 10% percent of the world is enough to sustain evereything we have nowadays.

 

[martin's a madman]

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.

The reason most people wouldn't push him is because they HAVE to take responsibility, with the switch they aren't physically pushing the man to his doom. They are using a machine to do it and it becomes less personal. But the pressure of touching the person you are about to kill gives them a sense of humanity when you feel that they are squishy just like you.

 

[A random person]

Depends on the means and the end. I don't think anymore needs to be said.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Yes, unless there's a cheaper way.

 

[Mozared]

Think about that.

Your killing off 90% percent of the world!

I dont know you personaly but I couldnt live with that on my concience.

Oh, neither could I, but look past the smaller issues. If you kill the right people you can spread their wealth out amongst the people who haven't been killed. From a practical point of view this is always an improvement. It's what Hitler did, really - he killed loads and loads of jews and while tragic for them, he improved the lives of the other Germans. I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but emotions and 'morality' are the only things stopping us from killing others and taking their possessions. The question really is how big of an argument 'morality' is. So far it has shown to be a remarkable one, or the world's population wouldn't be half of what it currently is.

 

[Deleric]

The ends may justify the means, but I don't think anyone has the balls to do the means.

 

[Radeonx]

It depends on what your doing. For me, normally, yes.

 

[Xorghul]

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

Does that mean that the first human with HIV had sex with a monkey?

 

[mayney93]

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 means there are less ppl to consume resources and do bad stuff like murder and poluute teh earth its extremely cynical view but its one with the future in mind

 

[Wasurenagusa]

I am a firm believer of the cause justifying the means.
I would happily sacrifice lives to progress/ accelerate the advancement of the human race.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

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.

Nothing is always, so always is nothing. The end sometimes justifies the means, but never does it always or never. You should put an option for "Sometimes, it depends"