Do the ends justify the means?
- Thread starter Danoff
- 56 comments
- 1,374 views
- 3,425
The US has a law against assasinations. but there are some that say " why didn't you just send in a hit squad blah blah" to get saddam, forget that its a stupid Idea ( Do you stop with Saddam ? or kill his sons and Generals too ? ). BUT what if ? What if it was possible and the President broke the law and got it done? some would say the end justified the means. Because they saved a bunch of soldiers and civilians on both sides .
or for a less political example , what if you had knowlage of a murder that was going to take place and couldn't convince the law to stop it . So you did by killing the murderer before he went out and commited his masacre . Technically you yourself are a murderer in the eyes of the law . but the victims are still alive.
Another one .. You can drop two atomic bombs to stop a war or carpet bomb the same citys both with the same results. Was dropping the atom bombs to achieve the same end justified ?
or for a less political example , what if you had knowlage of a murder that was going to take place and couldn't convince the law to stop it . So you did by killing the murderer before he went out and commited his masacre . Technically you yourself are a murderer in the eyes of the law . but the victims are still alive.
Another one .. You can drop two atomic bombs to stop a war or carpet bomb the same citys both with the same results. Was dropping the atom bombs to achieve the same end justified ?
- 87,821
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Oh come on - you just totally skirted ledhed's question.
Ends: To terminate the War in the Pacific.
Means 1: Prolonged campaign of carpet bombing. Will acheive ends eventually.
Means 2: Fission weapons. Will acheive ends in 3 days flat.
Now we know which one was chosen - led was postulating whether the cessation of the War in the Pacific justified the dropping of the two bombs. He wasn't asking whether the actions of the Axis sides before that really justified the nukes - he was asking "Do the ends justify the means".
Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes, but not always. In fact not even often - since the very nature of the phrase implies doing something distasteful to acheive a desired outcome.
Ends: To terminate the War in the Pacific.
Means 1: Prolonged campaign of carpet bombing. Will acheive ends eventually.
Means 2: Fission weapons. Will acheive ends in 3 days flat.
Now we know which one was chosen - led was postulating whether the cessation of the War in the Pacific justified the dropping of the two bombs. He wasn't asking whether the actions of the Axis sides before that really justified the nukes - he was asking "Do the ends justify the means".
Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes, but not always. In fact not even often - since the very nature of the phrase implies doing something distasteful to acheive a desired outcome.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
I thought I answered it pretty directly.
I think that the ends cannot justify the means. However, the nature of the start of the conflict can justify the means.
Here's an example:
You get into a car accident. The desired ends for you is money to pay for your car, compensation for damages.
That in and of itself is not a justification for bringing a civil suit against the other person in the car accident.
It is the beginning of the conflict - "who was at fault?", " what was the nature of the accident?" that can justify those means.
We desired an end to WWII. But that end does not justify bombing. It is the beginning of the conflict, the attack on our people, that justifies the means.
This is the case with war in general, that the cause of the war is the justification rather than the desired outcome.
This is one of the reasons I can't get on board with Bush's "We wanted Saddam out because he had WMD and was dangerous." I don't believe that the fact that he will no longer be dangerous when he's out of power (the ends) justifies using force. It is only the begining of the conflict (not living up to terms, refusing to allow inspectors full access etc.) that justifies the war.
That's my take on it. That no ends justifies any means.
That includes the end of protecting people from guns justifying removing the civil liberty of owning guns.
- 2,767
The question is too generic. In that case, some might say that for you the means - giving unrestricted access to guns, let people talk on cell phones while driving, even if that results in deaths that otherwise could be avoided - justify the end, the sacro-saint ultimate freedom of mankind.danoff
As you see, that's a multi-purpose expression, reusable by both sides in any argument.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
It's not staying alive that justifies breathing, it's the fact that breathing doesn't harm anyone that justifies it. If breathing killed people, doing it to live wouldn't be justified.
Freedom doesn't justify those deaths, they aren't justified and freedom is not responsible for them - people are.
You don't have to justify allowing man to be free because it in and of itself doesn't harm anyone. Nobody would need to justify an anarchist government (even though I don't think that's a good thing) because it would not be responsible for anything (how could it? it's nothing!). Murderers have to justify their actions. The burden of justification is on the wrong doer.
- 2,767
So is someone who close his eyes (the mean I was reffering to, not deaths) and do nothing to prevent it when he as the ability, and the possibility to do so.danoff
Should I be able to sell a flame thrower to Joe? After all, it's not my responsibility if Joe fries his neighbors with it instead of using it as a cooking device for his BBQ chicken wings.
- 2,767
...
Ok, we may agree to let such impractical extremes as selling WMDs to Joe or laws forbidding pencils in pockets aside, if you will.
That, I know. what I don't understand is why. There's direct liability, but also indirect liability that can be involved in any wrongdoing.
Someone is walking home in an alley at night, and witness a women being raped in a corner. He just passes by, and doesn't even bother call 911. You'd say that in this case the only person liable regarding the crime is the rapist?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
Absolutely. Are you in favor of laws forcing people to help in any situation where someone is in danger? I know that in the US, in most states (I think), people are not required to help. An example is that you're allowed to watch a kid drown in the pool, even laugh at him, and there is no reason you would have broken the law. It means you're a very bad person if you're willing to do that, but it isn't an example of you introducing danger to society or violating someone else's rights.
Edit: I believe there is a scene somewhat similar to what you are describing in Spiderman 2 actually. Your example is coming close to what would be an accomplice to a crime. But I believe to have been an accomplice you have to actually help commit the crime and have intent. Not reporting a crime is not the same thing as helping commit it or having intent. But I agree, it does get into fuzzy territory. I'll try to get my lawyer friend to explain this to me further because I believe there are cases where you have to do something when you know about a crime.
Edit2: Spiderman 1 also has a similar case.
- 2,767
Anyone who have their mind right would help. Anyone who wouldn't, doesn't deserve their freedom IMO (and according to the laws where I live, since exercing this kind of freedom does not have any benefits for anyone). And I'm quite surprised it wouldn't be considered illegal in the US.danoff
- 2,093
danoff
An interesting example. There is a phenomenon called the bystander effect in psychology. If someone sees someone in trouble, but sees other people like himself not acting to help out, he or she will mostly also not help out. If, after all, help was really needed, then why aren't the other people helping out?
As a result of which, a young 3 year old ended up drowning in a ditch in a holiday park with about 20 people just standing there watching. At that point, we made a law that in these circumstances where you are capable of rescuing someone without a serious chance of hurting yourself in the process, you are required to assist. Psychological studies have shown that stressing individual responsibility in these circumstances breaks that 'spell', and the best way to stress this individual responsibility is by making it a criminal offence not to.
However, in the example you cite, people would risk harm to themselves and are not required, and not even recommended to assist in person but to call for help immediately, try to take in details of the criminal that can assist in prosecution, and help the victim afterwards. It has happened often enough that someone who did in fact help, or even said something to a bunch of guys kicking bicycles to shreds, got seriously hurt or even dead. The points above makes you a decent citizen, risking your life makes you a hero. The latter is optional, but appreciated.
Of course we don't just write that down silently in our lawbooks, and certainly not in such detail, but we educate through tv-ads and so on. It's definitely a good thing, because we've seen enough examples of the bystander effect to understand that something should be done.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
But where do you draw that line? Once you open up that possibility, who arbitrates what is considered an acceptable threshold of action or inaction?jpmontoya
To use an age-old example: Natural gas explosions kill thousands of people every year. Thousands more die of asphyxiation from gas leaks or improper combustion, etc., and many are burned by natural gas fires even if they don't die. It's within our power to legislate against the use of natural gas. Why haven't we done so yet? Our inaction is costing thousands of lives every year.
Who makes that decision?
You're correct - it's not your responsibility. And if you are denied the ability to sell the flamethrower to Joe, what is to say that Joe won't sneak into their house and blow out the pilot light on their furnace? KA-BOOM. Or if natural gas is outlawed, he could sneak in and cut their throats with a box cutter... but wait, they're too dangerous too; they'll have to go. He could smother them! Pillows have to be safe enough that they will still be legal, right?
It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But it's a perfectly valid example of a philosohical "slippery slope". That means there is a point beyond which it is impossible to make an objective, logical decision. Beyond that point, subjective criteria govern any decision, and everything becomes a judgement call. Once you push yourself over that edge, there is no way to modulate your slide. The laws of reason do not hold and cannot be used to stop you at this point (which you find acceptable) or prevent you from going on to that point (which you find unacceptable).
So the only logical thing to do is not pass that point at all, and have rules that create a maximum of personal accountability, so that The System does not become the arbiter for all questions of personal freedom. Because we all know what a crappy job The System does on that score.
- 2,093
danoff
Not right to force them into action when that risks them their own lives, no. But when all it costs them is a wet pair of trousers? A three year old kid? How far exactly is that from throwing the kid in yourself and not doing something? A lot less far then you think, and I'm not sure you've understood the Duke's words completely.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
Of course you know I think there is a huge difference. There is almost nothing similar about those two scenarios. How does the person know when all it's going to cost them is a pair of wet trousers? What if it costs them their life? Sometimes it's hard to tell between when it will cost you nothing or everything.
Perhaps you (or duke) could point out where I have misinterpreted them.
- 2,767
Here the law at least requires you to call for emergency services or find help, it doesn't force you to jump in the water and risk yout life doing it.danoff
Duke, I think there is a slippery slope on either side, and in the end, we always have to rely on judgement, would it be individual or collective to avoid cases like this. This is a short answer, but I'll express my thoughts more precisely in my next post.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
So let's say the ends were to get good grades. Does that mean that if you cheat and get away with it and get good grades the cheating is justified?
Let's say the ends were to stop being irritated by some annoying person, does that justify killing that person and their family to accomplish that goal?
The ends are to get money, does that justify stealing?
I could go on and on.
Can you give me an example where the ends justify the means?
- 10,081
- WFG9
My view is no, but public complacency is a powerful thing; so in the end of some examples, the issue could be moot.
- 3,425
I have no " marketable" skills, a junkie mom a and dead dad , I live in a public housing project. i've managed to get my hands on a .38 revolver and some ammo and I've gotten good at using it through practice. a dude offers me 1000.00 in cash to bump off some crack head. I gotta feed myself and get some new nikes so I smoke the dude and get paid. No body misses the dead dude and in fact some of my homies think I did the world a favor.
the only people that dont think the end justified the means don't live around here.
the only people that dont think the end justified the means don't live around here.
Similar threads
