Poll: The Ends Justifes The Means

[SmartIdiot]

Where rape is concerned, no. Unless the rapist is raping another rapist. Then I guess it sorta justifies it. They can rape each other. Rape each other to DEATH!

But in all seriousness, yeah, 2 things I would (literally) tear someone apart for is either rape or harming a child. Those two crimes anger me in a way I cannot possibly describe.

 

[Hoxton]

aww you tottaly ripped off my argument >_<
DUDEEE!!

 

[Easykill]

Gray.

 

[toasterslayer]

well this is dark...

 

[manaman]

Generelly no, with a few exceptions.

Killing a murderer to get revenge or "serve justice" is not one of those. Those two are the government's job.
Killing a murderer in direct self-defense (or in assistance to a would-be victim) is.

If everybody could go around dealing their own personal brand of justice, we'd descend into anarchy within two days.

I don't even really think it is the governments job to kill people.

Yes peoples I am one of the rare few opposed to abortion, and opposed to the death penalty. Not that I care one bit about killing the murderers and dregs of society. I just think their justifications for it is a load of ass.

But I am with everyone else on the depends part.

 

[Lazzi]

Yes and no.

Murder can be acceptable in several cases. As can theft.

I guess rape could have its acceptable cases. You were raped as a young child, the rapist was big into the dominating part and abused you to an absolutly sick level. You discover them when your older, so you rape and dominate them untill you feel that you have gotten revenge.

My rape example is by no means perfect. Crimes and there punishment are based on bias. While I belive that theft is ok to keep your/a family alive, others maybe stuck on the fact that a person stole and therfor they have done something wrong and shouldnt be excused. We must also look at the perspective of the accused, did they kill to get revenge on some on that killed a family member/lover? If so then they are totally justified in what they have done, atleast from there perspective.

 

[Zacharine]

NO. Because unless you're a clairvoyant, you can never be sure your means are effective. And if the situation is bad enough for you to consider means that might fall under this question, you really, really don't want to make things harder.

So, generally no. On some cases the issue might be debatable, but those would have to be really special cases.

 

[Rigs83]

Starving people should not have families.

 

[sms_117b]

In some situations, but not others.

 

[fulano]

I believe it does.

Think about it, people. The problem lies in the fact that we think just in terms of extreme examples that are hard to realistically relate to unless we've had first hand experience(bombs, threats, violence, rape, torture). So, I'll try to give it a better shot, and I think people may, hopefully, find themselves agreeing with me.

I'm from Hermosillo the capital city of the state of Sonora, in Mexico. Being the capital we understandably have the same problems that most capitals in our country face, but those are in our case mainly the uncheckered growth of our city, which translates to population, too, and the lack of water. We are always trying to find ways to get more water.

Now, bear in mind that we are a third world country, and that with the growth of the city comes the growth of unwanted individuals, in the case of my example: children, many who will end as street children, children that will most likely one day grow up to stab you to take money to support their drug habit, rape you, or just kill you.

Also, there is in the city, an orphanage named Kino, after a priest from a while ago. Said orphanage is run by a church, one of those places with funnily dressed people who put the fear of God in ya, and also the same people that are clothing, feeding, nurturing, and putting a roof over the heads of many children, and ALSO putting them through school.

Now, I'm a naturalist and rationalist, and you could rightfully call me an atheist, and I believe that when I look at the state of things, human affairs, from a broader perspective; religion, in general, is one of the biggest tragedy to ever befall mankind, just behind extremism; and YET, I'm all for those people taking those children in and putting the fear of God in their hearts because the alternative is much, much worse, and I also think that it is very respectable of the priests to do that. The kids one day will grow up and some will have a shot at having a decent life, and they will deal with their fear of God pretty much the same way everyone does it, and that will be how things will go.

So, yeah, the end does justify the means. No matter how you slice it.

The only issue how you understand the justification and in what context it comes from.

 

[Yoshi_egg80]

Yes but only if you accept the sins of it after and this is only to rid of the "There is an evil so powerful you can't defeat it with just means but can with unjust so pick your choice and evil still exists" paradox.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Without delving into the reasoning behind it, yes the ends do indeed justify the means. There are plenty of perfectly good arguments against this logic, but most of them rely on fairly specific examples and a definite moral grounding.

 

[Naeo]

As a rule of thumb, "no". Saying "the ends justify the means is true" basically says "no matter how you do it, if it works, whatever you did is okay". Whilst it is true, I think, in situations like stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family, in general, it doesn't. If I have the goal of make an A on a test, and to do so I break into the teacher's office, steal the answer key, and beat up a friend who intends to squeal on me and then get an A on the test, the means are justified because I got and A and prevented myself from getting otherwise (prevented the kid from squealing and getting me into trouble and auto-fail of the test). So it's perfectly okay to do anything to get to the goal you set as long as you reach that goal.

Which, simply, is bullshit.

 

[Khazoth]

Morals are something invented by humans, and they vary from human to human.

So each individual situation and each individual person will warrant a different answer.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

The ends always justify the means. Because you can only judge an action on what it produces not what the intention was used when the act was committed.

So lets talk about killing 1 to save 10. The argument against it is that if you get involved you are a killer if you dont you arent responsible for the others action (which is a good point you are responsible for only your actions).

Argument for it. The ten people that you are saving have i higher possibility to achieve something great then the one person you kill. And there would be less harm to society if you only kill one.

I believe in mathmatics so iam going to save the one because of the better odds. that simple i dont care if it is what you call playing god all iam going is choosing the one with the higher probability.

Someone brought up the watchmen and said well the war wasnt assured there was no need to do that action. Again in comes back to playing the odds. If war would of started all of the world population would of died. It wasnt 100% that the war was going to happen but most likely it was going to happen. So he played the odds found a system that would make sure that war didn't happen and achieved that. It was a good action.

 

[quack35]

It's really different for every situation.

 

[Xvito]

That's okay, we're all tired sometimes.

Also, I kind of withdraw my statement about thought-police, although creepy, it might work if they were reading minds and always catching the bad guys.

The thing with killing people because they might commit crime however is that you can never be sure...

Then it seems we agree.
I don't like the idea of throwing someone to the lions because they might stab some chick.
That's not okay.
But after he's stabbed her, thought police away!

And you know crime would go down at least a little bit, because there's no chance of escape now.

That's not really what I meant... If someone has stabbed someone else then sure; put them away. But you can't use that as a reason to put them away for future-crimes.