Poll: The Ends Justifes The Means

[kiwisushi]

i believe no, if you do anything against the law, or against humanity or against the laws of life to do something for, what will generally be called a success for you, is wrong and canot be justified

Against the laws of a country is a bit of a tricky one, and crimes against humanity can be skewed to one side (the one that wins usually, or the ones that the big intervening force have decided upon). Not sure what you mean by laws of life, if you mean live and let live sort of thing then I can agree with that.

 

[El Taco the Rogue]

Watch Death Note. It shows that the power to say "The Ends Justifies the Means" corrupts so that one will begin to enjoy their power and use it even when there is no justification.

I dont really think you can say Light started to enjoy his power. Abuse it yes but enjoy it?

The whole God of the New world thing gets pretty out of hand...
Also, In fullmetal Alchemist, The whole creating a philosophers stone is a big 'end justifies the means' example.

 

[MoganFreeman]

Depends on whether you are a "Lawful" or "Chaotic" Good.

 

[Lord George]

I always complete my objectives and goals in all areas of life, the ends will always justify the means as that's the only way to get things done, there's no room in the world for those who get caught up in morality and stupid fantasy's of being a "good" person.

I've crushed countless peoples relationships and opportunities to allow myself to succeed in all areas of my life, its justified because I am better then them in my world view and therefore more valuable.

 

[Pendragon9]

No, with a few exceptions.

 

[Amishdemon]

Well it always depends on what the end is. do you mean killing someone to save 1000 lives or stealing a loaf of bread to keep a terrorist alive.it really depends on the situation and who you ask.

 

[Ver.ka]

A wise man would say. If you had to choose between two evil's, choose the lesser of the two.

What is the difference between Revenge, and avenge?

If anyone cares to take a stab at how that question is related to this topic, go for it.

The awnser to that question would be how i decide if the ends justify the means.

 

[Socius]

well Queen Mab certenly meant that, merlin to...
But personally, I belive that it does somtimes, but not always!
if you have to kill a houndred men so a thousand can live, would that be right?

 

[Wickedshot]

If the end justifies the means, then that means everything everyone does from now until the end of time is completely inconsequential since at the end of time the end will be the same regardless of what everyone did.

Why does one particular end matter more than other ends? If I end someones life to save the life of someone else for now, what does it matter when the one who lived eventually dies of old age? At that point both are dead, and this new end is the same despite your efforts.

The moment is what matters, what one does in this ever moving moment. If you commit an evil act now, for whatever past you remember or future you imagine, you have done an evil act and that's what matters and should be judged.

Good and evil are not additive or subtractive. Someone who murders one life and saves one life, is not the same as someone who neither kills one life and saves another. Someone who takes a life to save 10 others is not good, they simply believe they have the right to decide who lives and dies.

Anyone can justify anything. Millions of lifeforms die so that I live, and I go on living. Pain and pleasure are inextricably linked, as are good and evil, and life and death. Every child born brings pleasure and pain and death and life and good and evil, and they'll be balanced accordingly and all remembered in time and then forgotten.

True perceived morality and justice is just a matter of personal reality and attachments. The murder of someone important to you will undoubtably seem despicable, where as the million deaths of those who are nothing to you is just par for the course. Which is hardly surprising. We are self-centered by virtue of our existence, we have a first person perspective.

From a personal perspective, the ends do justify the means. I'll make a sandwich in order to eat it, but I wouldn't bother if there was end result and no benefit in it, its only easy to justify doing something for something I want. But if you're talking justification in some intrinsic morale good, then no, as ultimately either every act counts or none of them do.

 

[Xvito]

you dont know where that victims been, but what if you rape a rapist, wouldn't they stop raping people?

Possibly.
However, if you execute a rapist, as they rightly deserve, you have a 100% guarantee that they will stop raping people, and you avoid bringing yourself down to their level.

If you kill someone, then you're a murderer no matter who you kill...

Also, define ends and means.

Well, yes. You are.
Because "murderer" is a term used to describe someone who has killed others in cold blood.
It doesn't mean you can't be a just murderer.
If it helps, think of yourself as an executioner.

The only difference between a murderer and an executioner is that the murderer hasn't got permission to kill.

 

[Xvito]

The only difference between a murderer and an executioner is that the murderer hasn't got permission to kill.

You're right. But how much difference does that make, honestly?
You're still taking a human life. So you're under orders to do so - does that make them any less dead?
Does it make you any less responsible?

Not really. So I don't see how it matters much.

That's what I meant.

You were the one who proposed a difference between them in the first place.

Also, about what you said before, I qoute: "if you execute a rapist, as they rightly deserve, you have a 100% guarantee that they will stop raping people". I don't know the context of this but... If you think like this then basically you want a thought-police.

 

[Xvito]

That's what I meant.

You were the one who proposed a difference between them in the first place.

Also, about what you said before, I qoute: "if you execute a rapist, as they rightly deserve, you have a 100% guarantee that they will stop raping people". I don't know the context of this but... If you think like this then basically you want a thought-police.

...Wow. I'm not sure how I missed that.
I apologize. I have something of a horrible headache and I am actually getting ready to go to bed.

What's wrong with thought-police if they only stop people who need to be stopped? As long as they're not used to keep dictators in power, to execute enemies of the state, etc...

Anyway, I wasn't thinking an institution, really. I was going for more of a "This is what I, personally, would do." thing.

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...

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Utilitarianism is an age-old debate. Whether or not doing something morally unclean to achieve a positive outcome is wrong is one of the most oft-argued philosophical discourses I've ever encountered. I'm of the opinion that no, they do not; however, arguing this would be a bit futile, as very rarely do people agree.

 

[orangebandguy]

The end always has to justify the means. It's just when the means begin to take effect.

 

[Zealot_Guy]

I can not think of any senario where rape could be considered a good idea. Even if it's just a fantasy...and if it is a fantasy then it's not really rape then, is it?

I'm thinking that the whole rape game thing isn't even going to be true rape. Rape is not an act of sex or passion. Rape is a crime of violence and control. Rape is a display of domination and superiority. It's sexual sadism, people get off from the violence and pain of it, not the sexual act. I think I speak for everyone when I say that beating someone down and then having sex with a scared, crying girl begging for you to stop and screaming in pain doesn't exactly sound like a grand ol' time.