"The end justifies the means"

[curlycrouton]

"The end justifies the means" is something Stalin would say.

Occasionally it does, occasionally it doesn't. It's as simple as that.

 

[Beetlejooce]

The end justifies the means was said by Niccolo Machiavelli.

If you subscribe to this idea you are considered Machiavellian.

Apart from that, In a lot of cases it depends on if you don't give a shit, or give a lot of shit, or neither take nor receive shit (losing the point).

Basically if you can do something and not really care how you did it, then yes i suppose so.

It's really a question of yourself, not if it's right, because different people will say differently.

 

[JediMB]

Does the end justify the means? It does indeed depend on what the end and the means in question are, so the question can not be generalized.

Except if your name is Inui Takumi.
Then the end always JustiFAIZ the means.

Spoiler

>_>

 

[Aardvark]

If the end result is worth less than the cost to get there, then it did not justify the means. Simple economics.

 

[Railu]

The end does not justify the means. That's the expression you're looking for. It's not the other way around.

It basically means: Don't compromise your morals to achieve your goals.

Is that hard to understand?

 

[Silver]

Ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that question and see what kind of answers you get.

Well OF COURSE the individual is going to feel the pinch. We're talking about the grand scheme of things here.

So what is an individual in this case? A whole country affected by the decision? Practically every country since considering it wrong? It's not just one individual from Hiroshima complaining, you know.

Your argument is pretty bad there. The feelings of those killed or horribly injured in the atomic blasts bears no relevance to the question 'does the end justify the means', as it's not them deciding wether it is so. The question is directed at the government & people of America, as to wether they feel the ends justified the means or not. Was the lack of a ground war worth killing so many innocent civillians.

In any case, I feel that with such a large question you can never really simply say 'yes' or 'no', each case must be considered on it's own merits, and you must always act the way you feel is best. If you regret it, oh well, that's something to deal with later.

When such a decision affects the whole world, it's not only up to America, no. The whole world was shaken by what happened, and the effects spread across the whole globe, not just America. I know there are people who believe that America has that right, and that they can run around deciding things for everyone on the planet, but they can't. If it just affected America, then sure, but in this case? Hell no.

 

[Cheesysuitcase]

Hitler promised Utopia (a perfect world) which we may have well had but can you justify the means he went by?

 

[NXMT]

When such a decision affects the whole world, it's not only up to America, no. The whole world was shaken by what happened, and the effects spread across the whole globe, not just America. I know there are people who believe that America has that right, and that they can run around deciding things for everyone on the planet, but they can't. If it just affected America, then sure, but in this case? Hell no.

There was probably a better approach. There probably wasn't a need for two Japanese cities to be destroyed. There probably was enough manpower to push the invaders back.

My point is that it forced the Japanese into surrender, ending the war in the east. I can't even imagine the Hell it must've been like to live in those times but I doubt they had the luxury of time to sit and discuss ethics like we do right now.

By the way, just for the record, I'm not American.

 

[DoW Lowen]

It's all circumstantial. Killing to save your family is arguably acceptable, killing to get that last jar of peanut butter sightly less acceptable.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

To people who think this, If you go to a starving village is it justified to slaughter half the people in the village to feed the other half?

So long as the other option would have been to let the entire village die, then it is justified. If the slaughter had not been enacted and the village would have survived, it would not be justified. The context is important.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

It's all circumstantial. Killing to save your family is arguably acceptable, killing to get that last jar of peanut butter sightly less acceptable.

That's the difference between amoral and immoral. Being amoral is fine, in my opinion it's better than being moral. Logic is a sturdier foundation than outdated notions of right and wrong.

We don't live in a perfect world, so if you act like we do and treat everyone virtuously you're bound to get burnt. Promises may have to be broken, people may have to die to prevent further suffering. That said there's no need to be immoral and kill just for the sake of it or for petty reasons. Don't seek to be loved or to be hated, seek to be remembered as realistic. Be amoral.

 

[Silver]

When such a decision affects the whole world, it's not only up to America, no. The whole world was shaken by what happened, and the effects spread across the whole globe, not just America. I know there are people who believe that America has that right, and that they can run around deciding things for everyone on the planet, but they can't. If it just affected America, then sure, but in this case? Hell no.

There was probably a better approach. There probably wasn't a need for two Japanese cities to be destroyed. There probably was enough manpower to push the invaders back.

My point is that it forced the Japanese into surrender, ending the war in the east. I can't even imagine the Hell it must've been like to live in those times but I doubt they had the luxury of time to sit and discuss ethics like we do right now.

By the way, just for the record, I'm not American.

Who cares if you're American or not?

Yes,it forced the Japanese into surrender. So did bombing the rest of their cities into smoldering ruins as well, which wasn't justified either, I might add.

But what it also did was bring about an entire generation of people, deadly afraid that one day, the nukes might come for them. One day they might be the next target for a nuke, and their whole town wiped out, and this as in many countries that weren't even close to Japan, or had any real chance of being targeted.

The effects of the bombing goes far beyond just causing Japan to surrender, it shaped the world to come.

 

[KeyMaster45]

perhaps if you gave us an example?

To give you an example of a situation where the phrase would be used. Read Watchmen, practically all about "the end justifies the means".

 

[Adam Jenson]

perhaps if you gave us an example?

To give you an example of a situation where the phrase would be used. Read Watchmen, practically all about "the end justifies the means".

I know and in truth Iwas hoping the thread wouldn't use it. Something like that, on that scale. Its too big to comprehend

 

[balinus]

There's no such philosophy or statement that applies to every single situation in the world. I DO believe that the ends justify the means, depending on the circumstances. To say that it can't ever be acceptable is just naive and childish.

 

[NXMT]

Who cares if you're American or not?

Yes,it forced the Japanese into surrender. So did bombing the rest of their cities into smoldering ruins as well, which wasn't justified either, I might add.

But what it also did was bring about an entire generation of people, deadly afraid that one day, the nukes might come for them. One day they might be the next target for a nuke, and their whole town wiped out, and this as in many countries that weren't even close to Japan, or had any real chance of being targeted.

The effects of the bombing goes far beyond just causing Japan to surrender, it shaped the world to come.

Pardon me. I mentioned it because I thought your trying to insinuate something.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what might have been an effective alternative on stopping the Japanese war machine. The Americans nuked Hiroshima yet Tokyo was defiant. Dropping bombs might have been a harsh measure but in the end, good came out if it. On the other side, a planned invasion of Japan by allied forces was halted because of their surrender after Nagasaki. What about the lives that were saved there and then? Or is it "fair game" because they were soldiers? Many of the defending Japanese soldiers were conscripts. Civilians dragged from their homes in order to mount a last ditch defense. Were their lives worth less than the ones at the nuked cities?

I find that you're simply being too unrealistic and that it is actually possible to attend to every "side effect" or even a reach a compromise with an unrelenting and ruthless enemy, determined to conquer Asia. The war had been going for for years. Do you honestly believe the people who had to live in constant fear of an attack is going to ponder about the possibility of Japan in the future? We live in different times. Today we are more sensitive and "politically correct" but one look at WW2 propaganda is enough to tell you the kind of mentality that most would have at that time.

I'm not saying that we should resort to brute force but you cannot expect a written guideline for each and every situation. Drastic measures were taken in drastic times. The methods may be monstrous but the end result is there for all to see.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Actually, I think the invasion of Japan would not have been such a bloodbath. All that the Americans needed were some Churchill AVRE's, and they'd have been set.

 

[Captain Spectacular]

Well "the ends justifies the means" is the pretty much the whole basis for Utilitarianism. It's basically the idea that in order to achieve the greater good one must be willing to make sacrifices along the way. I think it was star trek that said it best "the needs of the many out way the needs of the few."

 

[Spacewolf]

Who cares if you're American or not?

Yes,it forced the Japanese into surrender. So did bombing the rest of their cities into smoldering ruins as well, which wasn't justified either, I might add.

But what it also did was bring about an entire generation of people, deadly afraid that one day, the nukes might come for them. One day they might be the next target for a nuke, and their whole town wiped out, and this as in many countries that weren't even close to Japan, or had any real chance of being targeted.

The effects of the bombing goes far beyond just causing Japan to surrender, it shaped the world to come.

Pardon me. I mentioned it because I thought your trying to insinuate something.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what might have been an effective alternative on stopping the Japanese war machine. The Americans nuked Hiroshima yet Tokyo was defiant. Dropping bombs might have been a harsh measure but in the end, good came out if it. On the other side, a planned invasion of Japan by allied forces was halted because of their surrender after Nagasaki. What about the lives that were saved there and then? Or is it "fair game" because they were soldiers? Many of the defending Japanese soldiers were conscripts. Civilians dragged from their homes in order to mount a last ditch defense. Were their lives worth less than the ones at the nuked cities?

I find that you're simply being too unrealistic and that it is actually possible to attend to every "side effect" or even a reach a compromise with an unrelenting and ruthless enemy, determined to conquer Asia. The war had been going for for years. Do you honestly believe the people who had to live in constant fear of an attack is going to ponder about the possibility of Japan in the future? We live in different times. Today we are more sensitive and "politically correct" but one look at WW2 propaganda is enough to tell you the kind of mentality that most would have at that time.

I'm not saying that we should resort to brute force but you cannot expect a written guideline for each and every situation. Drastic measures were taken in drastic times. The methods may be monstrous but the end result is there for all to see.

Theres also the point of what would of happened if the world handt seen what the effect of nukes in the real world would be rather than just tests, would the cold war of ecalated if both sides hadnt been afraid of each others nukes. What if they had launched there nukes because they had never seen what would happen? would that of been better?

 

[Seldon2639]

The question can't be parsed merely as "does the end *always* justify the means", because that's foolishness. It means that you take the situation to an illogical extreme, in that you have "killing five hundred people to save one baby", and trying to claim that as proof that the end doesn't justify the mean, but look at the complete equation. The end is that there are five hundred dead, and one alive, the mean is that you killed five hundred. Now, how about the Hiroshima bombing. If you just looked at "ending the war" as the end result, and "the death of 300,000 people" as the mean, it might be a difficult choice. But, if you (as Truman was informed) concluded that it would save 300,000 American lives, and almost a million Japanese lives, the end is "millions alive, 300,000 dead".

Don't see it as a dichotomy since neither Machiavelli, nor any other theorist on the issue, saw it as such. See it as a fluid state, where sometimes the end is worth the means, and sometimes it isn't. Thus, I'll pose a slightly different question:

Do you believe the end *can* justify the means?