Poll: The End Justifies The Means...

[jamesworkshop]

Exitus Acta Probat

^ My very bad Latin

 

[yaik7a]

Put the Aids people in Africa and close the borders . allow them to have a meanful life .
they would be better off as they will die any but will be able to have safe relationship with
out endangering anybody.

 

[Spirultima]

I have little care for people i don't know, and so, yes, the end justifies the means.

If i can accomplish something, i never give moral thought to the way i accomplished it (though during the process of the task, i try and find the method where the least is lost.)

Also, putting them on an island wouldn't kill HIV, it would make the island infected, ergo, burn them all, is the first thing that pops into my head, but if i gave it some thought, i could think of a more humane method.

 

[TheScarecrow]

The end always justifies the means.

 

[Bofus Teefus]

Why not use test tube babies (people created in labs) for the medical procedures.

As uncomfortable as it would make me, I'd go with it.

I wouldn't be uncomfortable because they were created to be used for the procedures, it's the only reason they are alive.

These would still be people. By your logic, if your parents had given birth to you for the sole purpose of having tests done on you, that would be ok. I mean, you would have been created to be used in procedures, right?

Not so much. If technology ever permits, people born by "artificial" methods will still be people.

More on topic- you really can't give a blanket statement one way or the other. It depends on the situation.

 

[AkJay]

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?

yea, you didn't know that? it's how the whole AIDS thing started, one guy had sex with a monkey, then with a man, then that man had sex with a girl, so on and so forth, here we are.

 

[Dioxide20]

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

This.

I agree eith putting all criminals on an island and leaving them there, but victims of dieseases is going a bit to far.

^ Same as above ^

 

[Sparrow]

The end always justifies the means for those that don't qualify as "the end".

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I personally find "the ends justify the means" to be a careless blanket statement that can't really be apllied to real life.

 

[Viperus]

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.

Actually, theres different types of HIV, so the virus could mutate and kill them faster. So tehnically, it might be killing them.


Looking at the bigger picture, the end justifies the means. Maybe not right now, but after, when everybody forgets, your contribution does matter.

If someone were to eliminate all the HIV positive people, the world would be in shock, many would protest, blah blah, but 100 years later, that person would be known as the person who erradicated AIDS.

If youre doing a horrible thing for a greater cause AND SUCCEED in it, years later, you will be a hero.

Americans nuked Hiroshima - nobody really seems to care anymore, but the Americans won the war, and decreased total number of casualties, thus they are awesome. Same thing with indians.

Stem cells etc. - what horrible things will science do in the future, nobody knows, but sooner or later medicine will be able to completely regenerate any injury, and people will be overjoyed about it. Or...they will bullshit about it until they lose a limb, and prove themselves to be hypocrites.

 

[MrNades]

Yeah I really think it depends on the situation, like if the only way to save the world was to kill 3 people I think I would.

 

[Salmaras]

The end can never truly justify the means, because sometimes it is impossible to measure the extent of the damage caused by such actions.

 

[David_G]

Well the ending of Watchmen is pretty fucked up, I mean, the whole of New York gets destroyed, millions of people get killed, but, world peace is restored. But that's just fiction, in real life, I think it depends, on what are the means, and what are the ends.

 

[jboking]

Your topic is very vague. You only asked if the ends justify the means. Well, mean getting to eat jellied toast justifies me having to get out a fork and jelly and making toast then spreading the jelly on the toast. Then ends justified the means in that situation.

However, it is never justified to use man as a means to an end. I think that is what you were trying to go with, so no, I don't agree with that phrase.

 

[Kriptonite]

I think it depends on the situation.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

The end justifies the means. The allies decided to drop the atom bomb on hiroshime and nagisaki. it ended the war saving hundred of thousands of lives if not millions of both the japanese and allies. I think that justified the use of the most devasting weapon of the era.

If to end HIV i would yes support the execution of millions to destroy that disease. Only if there is no other way. If i had it i would step onto the ship myself and be fine with my fate. Thats just a very extreme example though. Medical science is not going to fail us that badly. There may be no cure ever but there may be better preventive medications

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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.

I would say yes to both situations unless I knew the large man and was not attached to the others. I would sacrifice 100 innocents for someone I truly cared about, but other than that the ends would justify the means to me (killing one to save five).