NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that any means to an end doesn't justify them and by the power of karma all things done by wrong ways will bite the ass of the one that done them in wrong way eventually. Humanity has to try to do everything by better ways as much as its possible, taking the long hard route of moral and ethic obligations and thinking over it. Of course we will make mistakes because it is practically not possible to do everything in utopically righteous way to ''please everyone and be politically correct''. Still we must try and go into details to see what was right and what was wrong.
Just taking the easy way and stop thinking about the way we do things won't work and only can end as in the 3rd Reich. There is karma, there is justice caused by our own actions condemning us. What do you think?

As is patently obvious from my name, I believe in the exact opposite. Who cares how something was done as long as it was done?

I agree, but this should be posted in Moderation.

As is patently obvious from my name, I believe in the exact opposite. Who cares how something was done as long as it was done?

Because doing something the wrong way can ultimately lead to its destruction.

If the ends don't justify the means, what does justify them?

As is patently obvious from my name, I believe in the exact opposite. Who cares how something was done as long as it was done?

Because as the old saying goes, "the means NEVER justifies the end". If it does, then you've got the green light to do anything, however immoral it is.

I agree, but this should be posted in Moderation.

er no i do not see one word in this to see why it should be there

If the ends don't justify the means, what does justify them?
Nothing really, but they way of thinking often leads to trouble. You need not look past the various ways your ideology has been implemented to realize that.

Because as the old saying goes, "the means NEVER justifies the end". If it does, then you've got the green light to do anything, however immoral it is.

No, you have the "green light to do anything" only when the ends actually justify it, and not when they don't.

You need not look past the various ways your ideology has been implemented to realize that.

I see wrong ends a whole lot more than wrong means, frankly.

Because as the old saying goes, "the means NEVER justifies the end". If it does, then you've got the green light to do anything, however immoral it is.

If it leads to a positive result, then yes. However, it would be preferable to utilize the proper means to achieve the end which you have in mind. For example, gassing the poor is not a morally correct way to eliminate poverty. The only correct end is to maximize the quality of life of society, and any means which can achieve that end is fine by me.

If it leads to a positive result, then yes. However, it would be preferable to utilize the proper means to achieve the end which you have in mind. For example, gassing the poor is not a morally correct way to eliminate poverty. The only correct end is to maximize the quality of life of society, and any means which can achieve that end is fine by me.

Well, in that case it doesn't really matter because the means used to achieve that end are utilitarian and they don't cause the kind of damage that could threaten the ends that you achieve.

Generally, it's the morally right and philosophically utilitarian means that produce the desired end.

If it leads to a positive result, then yes. However, it would be preferable to utilize the proper means to achieve the end which you have in mind. For example, gassing the poor is not a morally correct way to eliminate poverty. The only correct end is to maximize the quality of life of society, and any means which can achieve that end is fine by me.

But if poverty were eliminated by gassing the poor would these ends justify the means?

But if poverty were eliminated by gassing the poor would these ends justify the means?

That depends. If the aggregate quality of life would increase after the poor were gassed, either in the short term or in the long term, more than it would have if the poor were still alive, then yes. It's simple math; you must strive to maximize the "happiness," for lack of a better term, within a system, whatever the costs. However, you cannot sacrifice the happiness of many for an ephemeral benefit which will soon vanish into nothingness. The only way I could see that idea being justified was if the poor were preventing other people from breeding (due to over-population), whose children would be happier than the poor, or if the poor lived an absolutely miserable life to which death was preferable.

But if poverty were eliminated by gassing the poor would these ends justify the means?
Owned.

Owned.

What the hell do you mean? I clearly stated that it would not, and I discussed my reasons for believing that. It's not like the thought hadn't occurred to me.

That depends. If the aggregate quality of life would increase after the poor were gassed, either in the short term or in the long term, more than it would have if the poor were still alive, then yes. It's simple math; you must strive to maximize the "happiness," for lack of a better term, within a system, whatever the costs. However, you cannot sacrifice the happiness of many for an ephemeral benefit which will soon vanish into nothingness. The only way I could see that idea being justified was if the poor were preventing other people from breeding (due to over-population), whose children would be happier than the poor, or if the poor lived an absolutely miserable life to which death was preferable.

But who has the right to make that decision? Isn't it also possible to simply gas the rich and distribute their wealth to the poor? What if the cause of the poor peoples' misery is the system itself rather than any personal decision of their own?

I believe that any means to an end doesn't justify them and by the power of karma all things done by wrong ways will bite the ass of the one that done them in wrong way eventually. Humanity has to try to do everything by better ways as much as its possible, taking the long hard route of moral and ethic obligations and thinking over it. Of course we will make mistakes because it is practically not possible to do everything in utopically righteous way to ''please everyone and be politically correct''. Still we must try and go into details to see what was right and what was wrong.
Just taking the easy way and stop thinking about the way we do things won't work and only can end as in the 3rd Reich. There is karma, there is justice caused by our own actions condemning us. What do you think?

I think you to be an affront to the English language, and that the politics you propound simply demonstrate quite why democracy does not work. In order to maintain the status and interests of a nation, a difficult course may, periodically, be required, and yet you would eschew this. Moron.

I think you to be an affront to the English language, and that the politics you propound simply demonstrate quite why democracy does not work. In order to maintain the status and interests of a nation, a difficult course may, periodically, be required, and yet you would eschew this. Moron.

The problem is, who is the one that decides what that difficult course is?

The problem is, who is the one that decides what that difficult course is?

A council of wise and decent chaps. Preferably woth top hats and crevattes.

A council of wise and decent chaps.

Who makes sure they're wise and decent?

And since when have wise and decent people made consistently correct decisions?

Who makes sure they're wise and decent?

And since when have wise and decent people made consistently correct decisions?

My sort of wise and decent, I might add.

It's simple math; you must strive to maximize the "happiness," for lack of a better term, within a system, whatever the costs.

Define "happiness."

Why should we abolish it? The "end DOES justify the means" if the end is what you set out to do from the start no matter what you have to do to reach it.

A council of wise and decent chaps.

But who decides their wisdom and decency? After all, who watches the watchmen...without a check on their power, "wisdom and decency" degenerate in to powerlust and depravity.

Preferably woth top hats and crevattes.

I can't knock their fashion style, however.

My sort of wise and decent, I might add.

But why is your sort the one that should be chosen? I mean, Caligula's idea of "wise and decent" is probably a lot different than Cicero's.

But why is your sort the one that should be chosen? I mean, Caligula's idea of "wise and decent" is probably a lot different than Cicero's.

Because I presuppose the interests of the nation to be imperative, therefore those best equiiped to determine this, and effect it, would be chosen.

Because I presuppose the interests of the nation to be imperative

What are the "interests of the nation"?

What are the "interests of the nation"?

Thats not strictly relevant. The point is that the means by which they are sought are all permissable.

Who cares how something was done as long as it was done?Meh, I think I'll keep taking the door to get outside. It may be possible to break down a wall to reach the same end. But it's such a bother having to fix it. It's not just that, in this case, it's easier to take the door. But you can create no amount of trouble for yourself later if you don't pick the right means to accomplish a goal.

Thats not strictly relevant. The point is that the means by which they are sought are all permissable.

Not if the ends are bad, or disproportionate to the cost.

Thats not strictly relevant. The point is that the means by which they are sought are all permissable.

Yes it is. Depending on the ends, the means will be vastly different.

I think you to be an affront to the English language, and that the politics you propound simply demonstrate quite why democracy does not work. In order to maintain the status and interests of a nation, a difficult course may, periodically, be required, and yet you would eschew this. Moron.
Yeah I write whatever comes to my mind in chain on the run sentences which is an unfortunate habit from being always have to tell so much on so little time. If you had to teach the beginning of universe(and the following things) every time to make your point like I did you would have ended just the same.
As for democracy I believe that the only wrong thing about it is you have to wait 4-5 or maybe 6 years before being able to correct your mistake. Again and again...
I believe with increased computerisation, compulsary voting and fast result processing by computers we can have direct democracy that every decision is voted by whole population of country without any limits on age, sex, mental condition etc. So we won't have to chose represantatives to make things a mess for us and can directly mess things up and constantly change our minds.

Yes it is. Depending on the ends, the means will be vastly different.

However, I maintain that they are all permissable. Of course, my interpretation of interests is a little conservative, but hey!

Yeah I write whatever comes to my mind in chain on the run sentences which is an unfortunate habit from being always have to tell so much on so little time. If you had to teach the beginning of universe(and the following things) every time to make your point like I did you would have ended just the same.
As for democracy I believe that the only wrong thing about it is you have to wait 4-5 or maybe 6 years before being able to correct your mistake. Again and again...
I believe with increased computerisation, compulsary voting and fast result processing by computers we can have direct democracy that every decision is voted by whole population of country without any limits on age, sex, mental condition etc. So we won't have to chose represantatives to make things a mess for us and can directly mess things up and constantly change our minds.


You're not classically educated are you? Ever heard of Classical Athens? Demagogues?

That depends. If the aggregate quality of life would increase after the poor were gassed, either in the short term or in the long term, more than it would have if the poor were still alive, then yes. It's simple math; you must strive to maximize the "happiness," for lack of a better term, within a system, whatever the costs. However, you cannot sacrifice the happiness of many for an ephemeral benefit which will soon vanish into nothingness. The only way I could see that idea being justified was if the poor were preventing other people from breeding (due to over-population), whose children would be happier than the poor, or if the poor lived an absolutely miserable life to which death was preferable.

I think a truer statement and one that would include this type of exception and explanation is "The means often define the ends." The end you have in mind may be the elimination of poverty but how you get there may leave you with rather unexpected results and a pissed off poor population.

You're not classically educated are you? Ever heard of Classical Athens? Demagogues?

I think a lot and talk a lot
Only to later pick up books
and read my thoughts
from the dead men mouths.

I think a lot and talk a lot
Only to later pick up books
and read my thoughts
from the dead men mouths.

Thats fucking spooky.

Thats fucking spooky.

glad you liked it :D

Define "happiness."

All I'm saying is that there is an objectively correct course of action to take based on the concept that we need to maximize the welfare of our fellow human beings. Thus, there is an objectively correct formula which can determine how "happy" somebody is, but I do not know it. Nonetheless, our object should be to obtain the maximum welfare for the populace in terms that we are cognizant of, regardless of whether they are completely correct or not. For example, giving people the personal freedom to do whatever they want is a wise step which increases happiness.

All I'm saying is that there is an objectively correct course of action to take based on the concept that we need to maximize the welfare of our fellow human beings.

Where does objectivity come in? Why should we "maximize the welfare of our fellow human beings"?

Thus, there is an objectively correct formula which can determine how "happy" somebody is, but I do not know it.

That doesn't follow. "Welfare" is not "happiness." Indeed, you have not even shown that welfare can be quantified.

Define "happiness."

All I'm saying is that there is an objectively correct course of action to take based on the concept that we need to maximize the welfare of our fellow human beings. Thus, there is an objectively correct formula which can determine how "happy" somebody is, but I do not know it. Nonetheless, our object should be to obtain the maximum welfare for the populace in terms that we are cognizant of, regardless of whether they are completely correct or not. For example, giving people the personal freedom to do whatever they want is a wise step which increases happiness.

The answer we were looking for was "Warm Gun."

All I'm saying is that there is an objectively correct course of action to take based on the concept that we need to maximize the welfare of our fellow human beings. Thus, there is an objectively correct formula which can determine how "happy" somebody is, but I do not know it. Nonetheless, our object should be to obtain the maximum welfare for the populace in terms that we are cognizant of, regardless of whether they are completely correct or not. For example, giving people the personal freedom to do whatever they want is a wise step which increases happiness.

Accepting unhappiness as part of our lives instead of acting like spoiled children is the achievment we must strive to. There is no end in the pursue of perfect happiness and there is no bottom line to unhappiness. So accepting a buffer zone of pain in our lives and having a place for it in our hearts makes us more flexible and uderstanding in our goal for more happiness. That's what I believe.

Accepting unhappiness as part of our lives instead of acting like spoiled children is the achievment we must strive to. There is no end in the pursue of perfect happiness and there is no bottom line to unhappiness. So accepting a buffer zone of pain in our lives and having a place for it in our hearts makes us more flexible and uderstanding in our goal for more happiness. That's what I believe.

You misunderstand me. I mean that you shouldn't punch someone in the face for no reason whatsoever, as that would cause them undue displeasure. You can, however, tell someone an article of bad news, even though it might sadden them. However, I was referring to society and not to individuals. The goal of society in general is distinct from that of the citizens of which it is composed. Society must try to improve the lives of all its citizens and be able to perpetuate itself. Beyond that, it's all good.

Where does objectivity come in? Why should we "maximize the welfare of our fellow human beings"?

You're kidding, right? Why should we not run around punching people in the face?

You're kidding, right? Why should we not run around punching people in the face?

No, it's a valid question. Why should I care about the welfare of my fellow human beings?

For example, I might be able to achieve greater material wealth by just screwing them over and clawing my way to the top or I might gain happiness from harming them and taking what I want. It might end up costing me more to care about others when I could achieve more satisfaction by advancing myself.

You're kidding, right? Why should we not run around punching people in the face?

I could give you a dozen reasons, both selfish and altruistic, but none of them would be objective.

The 'means' that justified the 'end' of the Cold War was bin Laden, Saddam, Afghanistan, and 9/11...puttin' that out there...

But if poverty were eliminated by gassing the poor would these ends justify the means?
The end is the elimination of poverty and the elimination via gassing of a fuckload of people - this is not an end that I feel is justified, much less an end that can serve as justification for some other thing (such as the means used to reach it).

The end does justify the means provided the end itself is justifiable. Since the end includes all the implications of the means, if the means are untoward, the end will be untoward and so not justifiable, if the end is justifiable, the means cant have been anything too untoward that they defy justification.

That depends. If the aggregate quality of life would increase after the poor were gassed, either in the short term or in the long term, more than it would have if the poor were still alive, then yes.

Yes, I'm sure the people espousing the views of Aryan supremacy would have been quite pleased after the untermensch were all gassed, incinerated, turned into lamp shades, etc, citing an incease in happiness everywhere. Except in the untermensch of course, but they don't count.

Does that justify it? I certainly hope not.

The end is the elimination of poverty and the elimination via gassing of a fuckload of people - this is not an end that I feel is justified, much less an end that can serve as justification for some other thing (such as the means used to reach it).

The end does justify the means provided the end itself is justifiable. Since the end includes all the implications of the means, if the means are untoward, the end will be untoward and so not justifiable, if the end is justifiable, the means cant have been anything too untoward that they defy justification.

Which is basically what I said, The means often define the ends. You've made an argument against The Ends Justify the Means and I agree with you.

Trying to abolish ends justify means is ridiculous.

Would you lie to save your life/someone else's?
Would you kill one to save many (of course, this 'one' would cause the deaths of the many)?

Trying to abolish ends justify means is ridiculous.

Would you lie to save your life/someone else's?
Would you kill one to save many (of course, this 'one' would cause the deaths of the many)?

Is this like a would I go back in time and kill Hitler question?

Which is basically what I said, The means often define the ends. You've made an argument against The Ends Justify the Means and I agree with you.
No I have not made an argument against the Ends justify the Means. Arguing that the quality of the end is the standard by which we can jude the means is not arguing that the ends do not justify the means.

If you ignore some aspects of the end then perhaps it is difficult to see that the end always serves as the standard by which we may measure the means, however if you take the end in its fullness into account, clearly in any case in which the end is justified, so too are the means. The value of the means actually cannot be known definitively seperate from or prior to the end.

If I am arguing that the ends is the standard by which the means may be measured and valued (or devalued as the case may be), as indeed I am, then I most certainly cannot be arguing that the ends doesnt justify the means.

The confusion so far as I can see comes from conflating 'targeted goal' and 'ends'; the two are not necessarily the same thing.

No I have not made an argument against the Ends justify the Means. Arguing that the quality of the end is the standard by which we can jude the means is not arguing that the ends do not justify the means.

If you ignore some aspects of the end then perhaps it is difficult to see that the end always serves as the standard by which we may measure the means, however if you take the end in its fullness into account, clearly in any case in which the end is justified, so too are the means. The value of the means actually cannot be known definitively seperate from or prior to the end.

If I am arguing that the ends is the standard by which the means may be measured and valued (or devalued as the case may be), as indeed I am, then I most certainly cannot be arguing that the ends doesnt justify the means.

The confusion so far as I can see comes from conflating 'targeted goal' and 'ends'; the two are not necessarily the same thing.
I am looking at this from a different perspective than you. The way I am thinking of it is that when one follows the philosophy of the ends justify the means, one does not take into account any sort of moral or ethical standard as long as one has a beneficial goal in mind. For instance, lets say that poverty would be eliminated by gassing all poor people and lets say that in Wacky World there is no downside to this accept that you would be killing innocent people. The goal is to eliminate poverty, the means is murder and what I am trying to say that in this case, if I were to be at all a moral person, that even though the end result is no poverty, the means at which it was reached is still immoral. Therefore, unjustified. There are times when the Ends do Justify the Means such as the atomic bombing of World War II. In fact, in hindsight, the Ends always justify or not justify the means. But to approach problems with no ethical or moral reasoning in the hopes of achieving a greater good or desired end will usually end with tragic results and an end not desired.

one does not take into account any sort of moral or ethical standard as long as one has a beneficial goal in mind.

wouldn't that be taking an ethical standard into account?

I am looking at this from a different perspective than you.
My perspective is the application of logic to the meaning of the words.

The way I am thinking of it is that when one follows the philosophy of the ends justify the means, one does not take into account any sort of moral or ethical standard as long as one has a beneficial goal in mind.
Which is in effect a perspective characterised by fallacy. The fact that we might not like a potential result of "X is true" does not make X untrue.

For instance, lets say that poverty would be eliminated by gassing all poor people and lets say that in Wacky World there is no downside to this accept that you would be killing innocent people. The goal is to eliminate poverty, the means is murder and what I am trying to say that in this case, if I were to be at all a moral person, that even though the end result is no poverty, the means at which it was reached is still immoral.
Right, but if you were to be a logical person, you'd also have to conclude that the ends would include the killing of a lot of innocent people and if you believed the killing of a lot of innocent people were unjustifiable then the ends would in that case be (to you) unjustifiable, because the ends are not merely (although many conflate them with ) the targeted goal. The targeted goal is simply something that may (and in some cases may not) be one aspect of the ends.

Therefore, unjustified. There are times when the Ends do Justify the Means such as the atomic bombing of World War II. In fact, in hindsight, the Ends always justify or not justify the means.
Exactly my point - the ends are always what either justifies (or not) the means.

But to approach problems with no ethical or moral reasoning in the hopes of achieving a greater good or desired end will usually end with tragic results and an end not desired.
Which is another matter altogether. The fact that some people might choose to illogically conclude that because the ends justify the means one lone aspect of an end justifies the means doesnt prove that the ends dont justify the means (rather it just proves some people need a bit revision in the art of logic). More to the point even if the ends justifiying the means were the cause of the situation you describe, that wouldnt effect the truth value of the statement "the ends justify the means". Things dont stop being true just because we dont like certain implications (or in this case potential implications) of that truth.

My perspective is the application of logic to the meaning of the words.


Which is in effect a perspective characterised by fallacy. The fact that we might not like a potential result of "X is true" does not make X untrue.


Right, but if you were to be a logical person, you'd also have to conclude that the ends would include the killing of a lot of innocent people and if you believed the killing of a lot of innocent people were unjustifiable then the ends would in that case be (to you) unjustifiable, because the ends are not merely (although many conflate them with ) the targeted goal. The targeted goal is simply something that may (and in some cases may not) be one aspect of the ends.


Exactly my point - the ends are always what either justifies (or not) the means.


Which is another matter altogether. The fact that some people might choose to illogically conclude that because the ends justify the means one lone aspect of an end justifies the means doesnt prove that the ends dont justify the means (rather it just proves some people need a bit revision in the art of logic). More to the point even if the ends justifiying the means were the cause of the situation you describe, that wouldnt effect the truth value of the statement "the ends justify the means". Things dont stop being true just because we dont like certain implications (or in this case potential implications) of that truth.

I think we agree for the most part. You're looking at it literally and literally, it of course makes sense. But I am against the Macciavellian philosophy of the Ends Justify the Means. I am against the thinking behind such a philosophy. I'm not against the idea that the actual ends qualify the actual means which were used. I'd be an idiot if I thought otherwise.

I think we agree for the most part.
I don't think there is a huge difference in our positions, more in the detail and the angle of approach (as you yourself pointed out in your earlier post), and probably most specifically in the best way to deal with certain potential implications.
You're looking at it literally
Very much so.

and literally, it of course makes sense.
I believe so (obviously)....;)

But I am against the Macciavellian philosophy of the Ends Justify the Means. I am against the thinking behind such a philosophy. I'm not against the idea that the actual ends qualify the actual means which were used. I'd be an idiot if I thought otherwise.
I'm against the short-sightedness (or intentional dishonesty) of passing off an intended goal as the ends when in fact clearly the ends are wider than that. Since I am rather literal in my interpretations I veiw the Macciavellian potential of interpreting 'the end justifies the means' as arising from an erroneous interpretation (or a dishonest one).

Certainly I agree with you that an intended goal does not serve as a determinative justification for any and everything a person (or people) might do in order achieve that goal. Because I do interpret most things rather literally I dont interpret 'the ends justify the means' to mean that a particular intended goal justifies whatever means and ends are necessary to achieve it. I do accept that some people use exactly that interpertation, but I prefer to address the problem as erroneous (or dishonest) interpretation rather than rejecting the truth value I percieve the phrase does (when interperated as I interperate it) carry.

I don't think there is a huge difference in our positions, more in the detail and the angle of approach (as you yourself pointed out in your earlier post), and probably most specifically in the best way to deal with certain potential implications.

Very much so.

I believe so (obviously)....;)


I'm against the short-sightedness (or intentional dishonesty) of passing off an intended goal as the ends when in fact clearly the ends are wider than that. Since I am rather literal in my interpretations I veiw the Macciavellian potential of interpreting 'the end justifies the means' as arising from an erroneous interpretation (or a dishonest one).

Certainly I agree with you that an intended goal does not serve as a determinative justification for any and everything a person (or people) might do in order achieve that goal. Because I do interpret most things rather literally I dont interpret 'the ends justify the means' to mean that a particular intended goal justifies whatever means and ends are necessary to achieve it. I do accept that some people use exactly that interpertation, but I prefer to address the problem as erroneous (or dishonest) interpretation rather than rejecting the truth value I percieve the phrase does (when interperated as I interperate it) carry.

Want to shake hands and frolick in a field of daisies?

Want to shake hands and frolick in a field of daisies?
Only if we cant find a handy field of sunflowers.

Only if we cant find a handy field of sunflowers.

I'll bring some shortcake. And strawberries. And whipped cream.

I'll bring some shortcake. And strawberries. And whipped cream.
That being the case I'm willing to concede the sunflowers and go with the daisies after all.

That being the case I'm willing to concede the sunflowers and go with the daisies after all.

Splendid.

I was thinking about the topic for a while.
I read the responses and I think a lot of you make good points.

Personally, I've felt that the problem with phrase and its following train of thought is that it tends to be a compromise on how much you care about the well being of someone other than yourself.

Let's not bother with the idea of the ends justifying the means for good or for bad. I say this because often, justification is made after the fact. It is the judgment of others after the event occured. There is no better or worse that is not subjective because one's morals are not always another's. There are simply opinions in peoples' heads.

The reason why so much moral outrage seems to come out of such discussions is because many times, "the ends justify the means" tends to shortchange people's livelihood for the benefit of others. Whether that is a compromise in standard of living or whether that's the flat out murdering of a population so that others can have "room" is the same thing.

The "ends justify the means" makes people into statistics. Morals don't really play their way into it. It is a calculation of numbers and figures. "If we eliminate poverty, use the extra money to fund government programs in military and education, surely then the populace will be in a higher standard of living."

There is no right or wrong answer here. There is a morally reprehensible answer that is shocked at the deaths of so many. There is a utilitarian answer that considers the added windfall of money a great boon.

You could argue for a very long time but it is very rare that you can change a persons ideals and morals on a message board ;)

I was thinking about the topic for a while.
I read the responses and I think a lot of you make good points.

Personally, I've felt that the problem with phrase and its following train of thought is that it tends to be a compromise on how much you care about the well being of someone other than yourself.

Let's not bother with the idea of the ends justifying the means for good or for bad. I say this because often, justification is made after the fact. It is the judgment of others after the event occured. There is no better or worse that is not subjective because one's morals are not always another's. There are simply opinions in peoples' heads.

The reason why so much moral outrage seems to come out of such discussions is because many times, "the ends justify the means" tends to shortchange people's livelihood for the benefit of others. Whether that is a compromise in standard of living or whether that's the flat out murdering of a population so that others can have "room" is the same thing.

The "ends justify the means" makes people into statistics. Morals don't really play their way into it. It is a calculation of numbers and figures. "If we eliminate poverty, use the extra money to fund government programs in military and education, surely then the populace will be in a higher standard of living."

There is no right or wrong answer here. There is a morally reprehensible answer that is shocked at the deaths of so many. There is a utilitarian answer that considers the added windfall of money a great boon.

You could argue for a very long time but it is very rare that you can change a persons ideals and morals on a message board ;)

Personally I like thinking and talking about my thoughts is another step of the thinking process for me. I enjoy it and thats what its all about :)

Let's put a new thought on thread to spice it up. Let's talk about :
THE END...
is there really an end? Doesn't every end is just another begginning? What does it matter to you or me that cold war is over? There is something else, after this there will be something else too! There is NO END to this cycle. If in every cycle we use worse means to end and at the same time the beginning of the next age won't it eventually bog us down and trap us in a tight knot?
My problem about the whole idea is its shortsightedness. If we believe such things as we must be willing to sacrifie everything including our humanity to reach an objective what the heck are we gonna do after we reach it and have a new one? It makes one no different than a hamster running pointlessly in a wheel!
It must be the way we do things thats important because thats the way we are going to spend our lives. Reaching the objective on the other hand will be such a short and unnoticable and quickly forgotten event that it will make anyone remembering it very much surprised. The road is long and can be enjoyed or made a living hell for ourselves, I prefer enjoying the life instead of making it a hell for myself to just reach to a sign on the road and then another and then another... The zen is in living the moment not passing through it so fast without noticing and experiencing it.

Doesn't every end is just another begginning?

um, that's not what the word 'ends' means in this context

um, that's not what the word 'ends' means in this context

It means this in all contexts:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/LewisDL/the-end-is-nigh.jpg

No... that's stupid.

How does one abolish a concept?

How does one abolish a concept?

You pick a country and attack it with less troops than is required for success.

I reject the notion of "the ends justify the means" for several reasons:

1) Because it's a self-serving lie. To my mind, it is nothing but an excuse for bad behavior. Nobody ever cites it unless they are trying to justify some bad act they either have committed or want to commit, or someone else's bad act that the justifiers benefit personally from. It's easy as hell to justify any means if you like the end. But all those poor who are being herded into the gas chambers to make room for the rich -- they would have a hard time finding any justification for it at all. Any time anyone says to me, "the ends justify the means," I start looking about to see what crime he has just committed or what person he has just screwed over.

2) It is a false principle, from a strictly pragmatic point of view. As someone else has pointed out, it doesn't matter what your desired end is -- the wrong means will not get you there. All those poor being herded into the gas chambers? To the person who would do such a thing, I'd ask: Do you really think you'll get all of them and all their friends and all their relatives, too? Do you really think you will never have some Inigo Montoya come hunting you down because you killed his father? Or 100 Montoyas, or 1000? Do you think that all of the rich would agree that your means were justified? Do you really think that, even as they scarf up the extra funds and resources, they won't start looking at you with the hinky eye, thinking, if he would do it at all then what's to stop him doing it to us? You say you did it to make them happier? What if all you did is make them paranoid about you? You can claim justification all you want. It won't help you if the survivors think you can't be trusted. History is full of proof of this. Every single one of the tyrants who ended up hanging from a rope or with his head on a pike claimed he was trying to help his people, but they are all remembered as murderers and madmen. Not helpers.

3) It is a sociopathic idea that destroys the foundation of society. Dramatic, huh? I'll explain. "The ends justify the means" rejects all notions of fellow feeling among human beings, of compassion, of ethics. If ANY means can be justified, then NOTHING is out of bounds -- no murder, no abuse can be considered not do-able by a person with a goal to work towards. Nothing and no one will be safe, if their destruction becomes expedient to the goal. This destroys trust, and without some measure of trust, people cannot live together in peace, and if people cannot live together in peace, there can be no such thing as "society."

"The ends justify the means" is the ultimate in unethical thinking. Our ethics may be understood as the things we will not do. An ethical person can be trusted because their personal limits are clear. No matter how hard they are pushed, you can always know -- you can trust -- that Person A will not do Action X. Period. Because he has defined himself, through his ethics, as a person who does not do that, and if he did it, he would destroy himself. No matter how much they want a certain end, if the most direct way to it would violate their ethics, then they will find another way, no matter how difficult it may be.

You can come to understand such people. You can come to predict and rely upon their responses. You can know where you stand with them.

But a person who claims "the ends justify the means" has no limits and remains undefined. You can never know what they will or won't do in any situation, and thus you can't rely on them, you can't trust them.

I believe that any means to an end doesn't justify them and by the power of karma all things done by wrong ways will bite the ass of the one that done them in wrong way eventually. Humanity has to try to do everything by better ways as much as its possible, taking the long hard route of moral and ethic obligations and thinking over it. Of course we will make mistakes because it is practically not possible to do everything in utopically righteous way to ''please everyone and be politically correct''. Still we must try and go into details to see what was right and what was wrong.
Just taking the easy way and stop thinking about the way we do things won't work and only can end as in the 3rd Reich. There is karma, there is justice caused by our own actions condemning us. What do you think?

I agree; the end does NOT justify the means; in fact the means can affect the end.

As is patently obvious from my name, I believe in the exact opposite. Who cares how something was done as long as it was done?

So you think that, for example, if you get your credit card bill paid, then it's okay that you robbed a bank or cheated a senior citizen out of his/her Social Security check to do it, that the only thing that matters is YOUR credit card bill gets paid?

Or perhaps maybe you believe reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by using alternative sources of energy is a justification for the current Iraq war and its effect and oil and gasoline prices?

It IS good that your credit card bill got paid, but what about the bank or the senior citizen?

Reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil and more prevalent use of alternative sources of energy is a good thing, but what about our soldiers who have DIED in Iraq? And oil and gas prices?

No, I do NOT believe the end justifies the means.

if the ends don't justify the means, what can?

um, that's not what the word 'ends' means in this context

Sure it is. For instance, in the hypothetical, eliminating poverty is the "end", but it's not the end of the story, of the doer's life. It's not the last thing he'll ever do. It's just one goal out of a lifetime of actions and goals. TLR's point is that, if we set a precedent in our lives of doing bad actions and justifying bad actions, and if we adopt a whole philosophy to justify doing that, then aren't we condemning ourselves to an entire life in which all we do is make excuses for our bad acts? He sees this as a hellish way to live, and I agree with him. He suggests that it is better to avoid doing bad acts and not have to justify anything. I agree with him on that, too.

TLR invokes karma. I'll explain what I think of as karma: The soldiers who carried out the massacre of civilians at My Lai in Vietnam are haunted by horrible memories of it. We know this because they said as much. Their lives are burdened by guilt, and this guilt and the memories drive them to drugs, alcoholism, self-destruction. They have spent decades trying to justify the act, saying they thought it was the right thing at the time, that they were confused, that it was war, that they had to follow orders, and so on. But none of those justifications helps. They just make the shame and the guilt worse. Even if those men never did another bad action in their lives, that one, no matter how they justify, put them into a hell they can't get out of. And they brought it on themselves through their actions. If they had chosen to disobey those illegal orders, they would have suffered punishments, but they would not have ended up in the hell of bad karma.

If an action is right, it doesn't need to be justified, and if an action is wrong, then it cannot be justified. The wrong thing to do is the wrong thing to do, and no excuse or justification will ever make it right. And the eventual bad result is inherent in the badness of the action.

I reject the notion of "the ends justify the means" for several reasons:

1) Because it's a self-serving lie. To my mind, it is nothing but an excuse for bad behavior. Nobody ever cites it unless they are trying to justify some bad act they either have committed or want to commit, or someone else's bad act that the justifiers benefit personally from. It's easy as hell to justify any means if you like the end. But all those poor who are being herded into the gas chambers to make room for the rich -- they would have a hard time finding any justification for it at all. Any time anyone says to me, "the ends justify the means," I start looking about to see what crime he has just committed or what person he has just screwed over.

2) It is a false principle, from a strictly pragmatic point of view. As someone else has pointed out, it doesn't matter what your desired end is -- the wrong means will not get you there. All those poor being herded into the gas chambers? To the person who would do such a thing, I'd ask: Do you really think you'll get all of them and all their friends and all their relatives, too? Do you really think you will never have some Inigo Montoya come hunting you down because you killed his father? Or 100 Montoyas, or 1000? Do you think that all of the rich would agree that your means were justified? Do you really think that, even as they scarf up the extra funds and resources, they won't start looking at you with the hinky eye, thinking, if he would do it at all then what's to stop him doing it to us? You say you did it to make them happier? What if all you did is make them paranoid about you? You can claim justification all you want. It won't help you if the survivors think you can't be trusted. History is full of proof of this. Every single one of the tyrants who ended up hanging from a rope or with his head on a pike claimed he was trying to help his people, but they are all remembered as murderers and madmen. Not helpers.

3) It is a sociopathic idea that destroys the foundation of society. Dramatic, huh? I'll explain. "The ends justify the means" rejects all notions of fellow feeling among human beings, of compassion, of ethics. If ANY means can be justified, then NOTHING is out of bounds -- no murder, no abuse can be considered not do-able by a person with a goal to work towards. Nothing and no one will be safe, if their destruction becomes expedient to the goal. This destroys trust, and without some measure of trust, people cannot live together in peace, and if people cannot live together in peace, there can be no such thing as "society."

"The ends justify the means" is the ultimate in unethical thinking. Our ethics may be understood as the things we will not do. An ethical person can be trusted because their personal limits are clear. No matter how hard they are pushed, you can always know -- you can trust -- that Person A will not do Action X. Period. Because he has defined himself, through his ethics, as a person who does not do that, and if he did it, he would destroy himself. No matter how much they want a certain end, if the most direct way to it would violate their ethics, then they will find another way, no matter how difficult it may be.

You can come to understand such people. You can come to predict and rely upon their responses. You can know where you stand with them.

But a person who claims "the ends justify the means" has no limits and remains undefined. You can never know what they will or won't do in any situation, and thus you can't rely on them, you can't trust them.

I agree with you 100%. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think a lot and talk a lot
Only to later pick up books
and read my thoughts
from the dead men mouths.
Did you write that, or are you quoting something? I'm just curious. I like it.

The wrong thing to do is the wrong thing to do, and no...justification will ever make it right.

what do you mean by the word 'justification' in order to make that a true statement?

what do you mean by the word 'justification' in order to make that a true statement?
Merriam-Webster has two entries. Relevant parts are bolded:

justification
Function: noun
1 : the act, process, or state of being justified by God
2 a : the act or an instance of justifying : VINDICATION b : something that justifies
3 : the process or result of justifying lines of text

self-justification
Function: noun
: the act or an instance of making excuses for oneself

See also:
justify
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
transitive verb
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>


There is a sense in which "justification" of an action is legitimate, as when you do something, and the justice of it is challenged, and you can point to the law or to a system of ethics and show that it was indeed a just act right from the beginning. That is the sense of definition 2 of the first entry, backed up by definition 1 of the verb "to justify."

But I would challenge anyone to show any law or any system of ethics that would, in this sense, justify the gassing of millions of poor people in order to free up funds and resources for others (using the hypothetical that has been floated in this thread).

In the context of "the ends justify the means" we are definitely talking about the second entry, "self-justification," about making excuses. The very phrase "the ends justify the means" implies that there is something wrong with the means, that they are questionable in some way. It also implies that they cannot be legitimately justified by the law or any system of ethics because we are not directed to law or ethics, but to the ends for justification. In this context, it must be obvious that the means are bad actions, otherwise, they would carry their own, legitimate justification -- their inherent justice -- with them and could answer any challenge without having to claim that they brought about a desirable outcome and that's why we should be okay with them.

This is backed up by the fact that nobody invokes "the end justifies the means" if they can actually show, by law or ethics, that their means were just or right. They only use it when there is no inherent justice or rightness to the means.

But I would challenge anyone to show any law or any system of ethics that would, in this sense, justify the gassing of millions of poor people in order to free up funds and resources for others (using the hypothetical that has been floated in this thread)..

In a circumstance of extreme scarcity, when the entire population would die otherwise, it would be justifiable under quite a few ethical systems.

The very phrase "the ends justify the means" implies that there is something wrong with the means, that they are questionable in some way. It also implies that they cannot be legitimately justified by the law or any system of ethics because we are not directed to law or ethics, but to the ends for justification.

and would not a justification for an action that did point to some ethical or legal theory be attempting to justify itself in terms of ends (at the very least, the end of following that standard)?

to say nothing of consequentialist ethical standards...

if any means can ever be justified, it seems to me that it will only be through reference to ends.

I agree with you 100%. I couldn't have said it better myself.
You couldn't have said it longer, at any rate. I really do have learn to self-edit. But thanks. :)

In a circumstance of extreme scarcity, when the entire population would die otherwise, it would be justifiable under quite a few ethical systems.
No, it wouldn't. First, your example is so marginal as to be useless, and second, there is a serious flaw in your assumption.

FIRST: Do you have any idea of HOW extreme the scarcity has to be and HOW rare such circumstances are? The only real world situation that could be applicable is when a group of people are in danger of starving to death, so they resort to cannibalism in order to survive. In such cases, most countries' laws excuse such behavior because the only alternative would be more death.

SECOND: But even such dire circumstances do not excuse murder. Even if you are in danger of starving, if you kill another person so you can eat them, you are still guilty of murder. The only reason no criminal charges were not brought in the Donner party case was because none of the survivors would or could testify that any of their party were murdered for food, even though there was some circumstantial evidence. It also does not excuse hoarding food and resources so that you will live while your neighbors die. In fact, in most instances of extreme privation, as during a seige or famine, such behavior is explicitly outlawed, not "justified."

This is because the bad actions required to survive are still BAD ACTIONS. Those who commit cannibalism to avoid starvation are not justified in doing so; they are excused for doing so, but they are still looked upon as people who did something horrible and bad. And people who hoard resources won't even be excused for it.

The flaw in your assumption is that you seem to saying that, if people are excused for doing something, it must mean that the action was justified or ethical. No, it just means the law is choosing not to punish them for it this time. In other words, letting them get away with a bad act.

By the way, I would point out that, while there were many recorded instances of cannibalism during Stalin's attempt to starve the Ukrainians into extinction, the vast majority of Ukrainians did not do it, even though they died as a result. They chose death because to eat the dead violated their sense of what was right in human behavior. The continuation of their own lives, or the lives of their children, was not enough to justify such a means.

So, then, what ethical system justified cannibalism in that context, that some people believed in but not others?

and would not a justification for an action that did point to some ethical or legal theory be attempting to justify itself in terms of ends (at the very least, the end of following that standard)?
No. To suggest that it would indicates misunderstanding of how law works and what ethics are. Ethics are "first principles," and when the law is invoked, it is on the basis of the "first principles" that determine X is right and Y is wrong. An example of a first principle would be the medical ethic, "First, do no harm." Another would be that "all men are created equal."

Neither of those is an end. They are beginnings. They are rules or standards that are set in place BEFORE any action is taken or any desired end identified. So, let's say my desired end is to put an end to cancer in the world. "Do no harm" dictates that I can't do that by killing the sick. If my end is to establish a new government, "all men are created equal" dictates that I can't establish an aristocratic heirarchy.

Let's say my end is to eliminate poverty. "Do no harm" dictates that I cannot do so by killing the poor, and "all men are created equal" dictates that I can't single out the poor for elimination.

But it is ridiculous to say that "all men are created equal" is an end, because there is nothing in that statement for me to do, no end to be achieved. Likewise with "do no harm." If I want to treat that as my desired end, I can achieve it easily enough by just staying home and doing nothing at all.

to say nothing of consequentialist ethical standards...
An example of which would be "the ends justify the means." I think you know my opinion of that.

if any means can ever be justified, it seems to me that it will only be through reference to ends.
Not if you work from first principles. Ethics do not require an end before they become valid. They are a set of rules for how you direct all your actions under all circumstances, and because they are so universally applicable, they have no inherent connection to any particular end.

No, it wouldn't. First, your example is so marginal as to be useless,

It's the principle of the matter. The likelihood is irrelevant.

If you grant that in a conceivable circumstance the ends justify even means so extreme, then you must also grant that the ends can justify the means.

SECOND: But even such dire circumstances do not excuse murder. Even if you are in danger of starving, if you kill another person so you can eat them, you are still guilty of murder.

Perhaps, but not if the alternative is both of you dying.

How is one person dying worse than two?

It also does not excuse hoarding food and resources so that you will live while your neighbors die. In fact, in most instances of extreme privation, as during a seige or famine, such behavior is explicitly outlawed, not "justified."

As it should be. The difference is that "hoarding" tends to promote the well-being of a powerful minority over the majority; that would constitute unnecessarily sacrificing lives that could be saved. In the case I brought up, however, some lives are being sacrificed so that all the rest can be saved; the alternative is everyone dying.

This is because the bad actions required to survive are still BAD ACTIONS.

They are justified bad actions, however. They save more lives than they destroy.

Those who commit cannibalism to avoid starvation are not justified in doing so; they are excused for doing so, but they are still looked upon as people who did something horrible and bad.

Whether or not they are is irrelevant to whether or not they should be.

The flaw in your assumption is that you seem to saying that, if people are excused for doing something, it must mean that the action was justified or ethical.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that it is justified, regardless of whether or not they are excused. Better sacrifice a few lives than many lives; otherwise we are privileging the few over the many, denying the moral equality of human beings.

No, it just means the law is choosing not to punish them for it this time. In other words, letting them get away with a bad act.

Isn't it even worse an act to sacrifice everyone's lives so that a few can live longer?

By the way, I would point out that, while there were many recorded instances of cannibalism during Stalin's attempt to starve the Ukrainians into extinction, the vast majority of Ukrainians did not do it, even though they died as a result. They chose death because to eat the dead violated their sense of what was right in human behavior. The continuation of their own lives, or the lives of their children, was not enough to justify such a means.

So, then, what ethical system justified cannibalism in that context, that some people believed in but not others?

Utilitarianism could be used for that purpose.

They are rules or standards that are set in place BEFORE any action is taken or any desired end identified.

no, they really aren't. they are put in place because of the ends they promote. otherwise we would be completely unable to make determinations between competing ethical claims.

But it is ridiculous to say that "all men are created equal" is an end, because there is nothing in that statement for me to do, no end to be achieved.

other than the promotion of equality in society. you know, what people who started pushing that idea actually went and did. they went around advocating reform and revolution because they wanted to achieve a particular end - a society that conformed to that moral principle.

Not if you work from first principles. Ethics do not require an end before they become valid. They are a set of rules for how you direct all your actions under all circumstances, and because they are so universally applicable, they have no inherent connection to any particular end.

i am unsure what you mean by first principles here.

and as long as your ethics contain the idea that one ought to live by said ethics (which is sorta contained in the concept), they are logically required to be concerned with at least one end. and that's at a minimum - real ethical systems formulate their rules/maxims/whatevers to promote a whole host of ends. that is the point of ethics.

It's the principle of the matter. The likelihood is irrelevant.

If you grant that in a conceivable circumstance the ends justify even means so extreme, then you must also grant that the ends can justify the means.
I think I have made it clear that I do not grant that the ends justify the means, so an argument that starts with "if you grant that etc" isn't going to change my mind. You have to show me why I should grant it, but your argument, following, doesn't do that.

Perhaps, but not if the alternative is both of you dying.

How is one person dying worse than two?
How is the strictly utilitarian option necessarily the best one? I say this as a person who usually makes utlitarian decisions. Even though I am generally utilitarian in my outlook, I can still see the limitations of it. I think I illustrated those limitations in my My Lai "karma" example in an earlier post.

As it should be. The difference is that "hoarding" tends to promote the well-being of a powerful minority over the majority; that would constitute unnecessarily sacrificing lives that could be saved. In the case I brought up, however, some lives are being sacrificed so that all the rest can be saved; the alternative is everyone dying.
And here is another flaw in your argument. Who are you to decide whose sacrifice or what kind of sacrifice is necessary or not? I addressed this in my first post, in which I mentioned that the poor being marched into the gas chamber are not likely to think that the end of eliminating poverty justifies murdering them. So, too, the few you choose not to save are not going to thank you for your generosity to the many. The people who loved them are also likely to hate you for it, and even the ones who are glad you killed someone else rather than them, are still likely to suspect that it'll be their turn the next time the snacks run low. After they have a chance to think about it -- especially once the food sources are restored -- the entire population you "saved" are likely to decide your actions were not justified at all.

They are justified bad actions, however. They save more lives than they destroy.
This argument depends on the presumption that death is the worst possible outcome. But those who choose to die rather than do something they think is wrong obviously do not agree with that. Therefore, your assumption is not unassailable. Obviously, it is possible to disagree. TLR hinted at this when he suggested that a life of "ends justifying means" is a hellish life that leads to the suffering of bad karma. You do something wrong to preserve your life; that means you get to spend the rest of your life suffering the guilt and shame of what you did. I'd rather be dead than hopelessly ashamed of myself.

Whether or not they are is irrelevant to whether or not they should be.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that it is justified, regardless of whether or not they are excused. Better sacrifice a few lives than many lives; otherwise we are privileging the few over the many, denying the moral equality of human beings.
The first paragraph negates the second one by the use of the word "should."

First you acknowledge that the actions are not justified but say they should be. Then in your next sentence, you say they actually are justified. You can't have it both ways. They either are or they aren't.

What you really mean here is that YOU think they should be justified, but the mere existence of your opinion is not an argument that would convince anyone else. WHY should they be justified? Because fewer people die as a result? But again, which people and who gets to decide? You claim to be protecting the moral equality of human beings, but I don't see you standing in line to commit suicide for the good of the many. All I see is you playing god and claiming that you are justified in doing so.

There are historical precedents for this, too. For instance, Robespierre claimed he had to guillotine all those aristocrats, and not just them, but everyone who worked for them, and then everyone who owned too much property or had too much money, and then anyone who criticized the revolution, and then anyone who criticized him, all for the good of the many, until a few people decided it would be for the good of the many to guillotine Robespierre. And the crowd cheered just as loudly for his head as they had for the king's, and for the same reason.

Isn't it even worse an act to sacrifice everyone's lives so that a few can live longer?
Um...if you sacrifice everyone's life, then there are no few who continue to live.

Utilitarianism could be used for that purpose.
You have failed to show how, considering the very utilitarian arguments that I and others have presented showing the failings of utilitarianism in this context (i.e. the ways in which it doesn't work).

no, they really aren't. they are put in place because of the ends they promote. otherwise we would be completely unable to make determinations between competing ethical claims.

other than the promotion of equality in society. you know, what people who started pushing that idea actually went and did. they went around advocating reform and revolution because they wanted to achieve a particular end - a society that conformed to that moral principle.


i am unsure what you mean by first principles here.
I can see that.

and as long as your ethics contain the idea that one ought to live by said ethics (which is sorta contained in the concept), they are logically required to be concerned with at least one end. and that's at a minimum - real ethical systems formulate their rules/maxims/whatevers to promote a whole host of ends. that is the point of ethics.
To please Soheran, I'll put it in strictly utilitarian terms:

If your only end is to do no harm, you can accomplish that by staying home and avoiding all social contact in order to avoid doing even accidental harm to others. And the whole rest of the world will not even be aware that you exist, so who gives a shit whether you are ethical or not? You could stay home and do nothing for purely self-serving, unethical reasons and have the same effect, even if it was not your stated end.

But if your first principle is "do no harm," then you can pursue all kinds of ends, so long as you do so in a way that does not harm others. This is the difference between an "end" and a "principle." This is also the difference between "first principles" ethics and so-called consequentialist ethics.

Ethics which are primarily concerned with the ends produced by actions often have to be reinvented for every desired end. They are too situation-specific to be really useful in guiding people's lives or in helping people to define themselves as individuals. Rather than knowing, "this is where I draw the line," everything becomes "if A then B, but if C then D, unless E or F in which case, etc, etc, etc, etc." Before you know it, you're right there with the guy who has no ethics at all, ready to do anything that is expedient for getting your way, only you come more weighed down with excuses.

But first principles ethics, which exist only for their own sake -- which are their own, self-contained ends, if you please -- can be universally applied to all situations and THOSE ethics can be used to either justify or condemn any choice of means, regardless of the end those means are aimed at. But they don't have to be applied to an end to have validity. They exist for their own sake.

This is in answer to your question, if the ends don't justify the means, what does? First principles do.

Muravyets has explained it all and I enjoyed reading it. The matter is 'bigger picture', side effects and chain reactions etc.

Trying to sum up my views again into a shorter piece now. One of my strongest beliefs is that there can be an objective and materialistic, very practical reason that we can't see in an 'what seems to be unnecesarry emotionalism'. I'm telling this because some people can't get the hard evidance hidden after ethics and principles.
Very simply for those people:
We can all use unethical means to reach our objectives, thinking them justified. But in the eyes and hearts of people we lose credibility, something that effects us for a too long time. Even if they don't say anything because they can't dare, when we are weak or vulnerable then same means will be , used on us. Trust is very important, reliability is very important if we are to continue living. An enviroment of trust is needed if we are to grow and prosper.
It is not good politically(public opinion), militarily, economically(think about your credit rating) or emotionally(regret).
History has shown us that victories of even greatest Empires last very short but lifestyles and methods used in the long run have a lasting effect on the minds of next generations. To ensure the survival of human race we must have some rules or will end.

Ps: I wrote that little piece :)

As is patently obvious from my name, I believe in the exact opposite. Who cares how something was done as long as it was done?

For once, MTAE, I find myself agreeing with you. This is scary.

Isn't the means part of the ends?

*Problem: Fly on sleeve*

ACTION 1: Brush on sleeve, fly goes away

ACTION 2: Take shotgun and blow fly away, while on sleeve - leaves you with no arm

Obviously (or at least I hope obviously) the more sensible option is action 1. The means of action 2 (shotgun) would leave you with a result (no arm) that is highly detrimental to the original aim *have sleeve arm free of fly*

Because as the old saying goes, "the means NEVER justifies the end". If it does, then you've got the green light to do anything, however immoral it is.

Its not always true, but I think on occasion it is. Thats far too vague a point to be universal.

if the ends never justify the means babies would never get their diapers changed. its an unpleasant task that virtually no one would do if it weren't for the necessity of getting it done.

The ends never justify the means is true. Using the means is justified (if at all) because you have a right to use them (eg because you own them). Then you might be motivated to use them because they serve some end which is more valuable to you than the ends themselves. Justification and motivation are two very different things.

Muravyets has explained it all and I enjoyed reading it. The matter is 'bigger picture', side effects and chain reactions etc.

Trying to sum up my views again into a shorter piece now. One of my strongest beliefs is that there can be an objective and materialistic, very practical reason that we can't see in an 'what seems to be unnecesarry emotionalism'. I'm telling this because some people can't get the hard evidance hidden after ethics and principles.
Very simply for those people:
We can all use unethical means to reach our objectives, thinking them justified. But in the eyes and hearts of people we lose credibility, something that effects us for a too long time. Even if they don't say anything because they can't dare, when we are weak or vulnerable then same means will be , used on us. Trust is very important, reliability is very important if we are to continue living. An enviroment of trust is needed if we are to grow and prosper.
It is not good politically(public opinion), militarily, economically(think about your credit rating) or emotionally(regret).
History has shown us that victories of even greatest Empires last very short but lifestyles and methods used in the long run have a lasting effect on the minds of next generations. To ensure the survival of human race we must have some rules or will end.

Ps: I wrote that little piece :)
We agree.

And good on you for that little epigram. I might illustrate it or design something around it, if I have time some day and you don't mind.

If your only end is to do no harm, you can accomplish that by staying home and avoiding all social contact in order to avoid doing even accidental harm to others. And the whole rest of the world will not even be aware that you exist, so who gives a shit whether you are ethical or not? You could stay home and do nothing for purely self-serving, unethical reasons and have the same effect, even if it was not your stated end.

But if your first principle is "do no harm," then you can pursue all kinds of ends, so long as you do so in a way that does not harm others. This is the difference between an "end" and a "principle." This is also the difference between "first principles" ethics and so-called consequentialist ethics.

that is a distinction without a difference. one could just as well act out the 'principle' "do no harm" by staying home and avoiding all social contact. and if that was your only 'principle' perhaps you might. same exact thing.

But first principles ethics, which exist only for their own sake -- which are their own, self-contained ends, if you please -- can be universally applied to all situations and THOSE ethics can be used to either justify or condemn any choice of means, regardless of the end those means are aimed at. But they don't have to be applied to an end to have validity. They exist for their own sake.

This is in answer to your question, if the ends don't justify the means, what does? First principles do.

why should one opt for one set of 'first principles' over another? and having adopted some, what is the point of following them?

The end is the elimination of poverty and the elimination via gassing of a fuckload of people - this is not an end that I feel is justified, much less an end that can serve as justification for some other thing (such as the means used to reach it).

No, the killing of the poor is the action(the means), eliminating poverty is the goal(the end). You are simply trying to make the end look bad by conflating the two.

The actual answer here, by the way, is that killing off the current lower class would only cause a new class of poor through hyperinflation. Since it doesn't actually accomplish the end, that particular mean is not justified.

The actual answer here, by the way, is that killing off the current lower class would only cause a new class of poor through hyperinflation. Since it doesn't actually accomplish the end, that particular mean is not justified.

additionally, it probably conflicts with one or two other ends we also value

additionally, it probably conflicts with one or two other ends we also value

Which would be?

Which would be?

well, not living in a society which periodically rounds up and kills thousands or millions of people probably ranks up there as far as desired and desirable ends go.

As is patently obvious from my name, I believe in the exact opposite. Who cares how something was done as long as it was done?

Everyone and everything should be treated as the end itself, not as a means to an end.

In general, an action will have various consequences. There will be the consequence that was the primary goal (the "end"), and various other secondary consequences (e.g. secondary consequences of me baking a cake were that my kitchen got messy, I used 2 hours of my life, etc). These are usually (but not always) negative. In the phrase, "the means" refers to these consequences. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense.

Whether the end justifies the means therefore depends entirely on what the end is, and what the "means" are. Sometime the end will justify the means, and sometimes not. But there is no way that we can say that the end always justifies the means, or that it never should.

that is a distinction without a difference. one could just as well act out the 'principle' "do no harm" by staying home and avoiding all social contact. and if that was your only 'principle' perhaps you might. same exact thing.
No, it isn't because it's not ABOUT the same thing. Saying it's the same is like saying The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is the exact same thing as Fear of Flying because they're both books. They are ABOUT different things, so is the difference between adopting "do no harm" as one's sole end to be achieved and adopting "do no harm" as a first principle upon which one bases all one's choices of means to other ends.

why should one opt for one set of 'first principles' over another?
For purely pragmatic reasons.

It is entirely up to the individual which principles they adopt for themselves or if they abandon the idea of principles and choose to go without any. I'm not promoting any particular set of principles for other people because that would go against my principles. ;) I am only saying that one's social relationships will be affected by how principled/ethical or unprincipled/unethical one is.

I have described the effects of having principles/ethics and the effects of having no principles/ethics. When one has them, the result is social relationships built on trust, which has the overall affect of strengthening the social bonds that make society possible. When one does not have them, the result is a lack of trust that undermines and eventually destroys social relationships, thus undermining the bonds that hold society together. I have also pointed out that this destruction of trust tends to backfire onto the unprincipled/unethical person, as shown by countless examples in history.

With these effects in mind, it is still up to the person to decide which route they want to take. Surely you must be aware that there are millions of people who reject principles/ethics every day, just as there are millions who stick with them every day.

and having adopted some, what is the point of following them?
I have already explained the point of following principles several times. I'll do it once more:

By adopting and following a set of principles, you provide yourself with a universal measure of what you consider to be "right and wrong," "good and bad," "acceptable and unacceptable." I say this measure is universal because it is applicable to all situations. It is not dependent upon context. Maybe it's more accurate to say that the measure applies to YOU, not to the situation, and so the context of it is always YOU, no matter what situation you might be in at any given time. In any event, the measure does not change just because the situation changes, because YOU do not change to suit the situation.

By identifying the first principles that will apply to you, you draw lines around yourself that serve to define the kind of person you are, both to others and to yourself. This gives you the benefit of understanding yourself, and it gives others the benefit of being able to develop stable relationships with you because they will be able to learn what to expect from you and how they can relate to you.

Note, when I say "stable" relationships, I don't necessarily mean "good" relationships. It is entirely possible for a destructive, negative person to be ethical and principled. It is possible to follow a set of ethics and principles that will allow you to be a criminal, a liar, even a murderer. There are many examples of ethical criminals in the world, nearly as many as unethical criminals.

Personally, I don't care which way a person chooses to go. I believe everyone is free to take themselves to hell in whatever handbasket they like. I choose the route of principles and ethics, so naturally, I prefer the company of others who do so, too, even if I don't like (or actively oppose) their particular set of principles/ethics. But I do say this -- it is not possible to escape the consequences of our choices. If you choose to live without principles, then, whatever benefit you may gain, you will still have to pay the price of other people not trusting you and risk the possible fall-out. If that's a price you are willing to pay, then go for it, but don't come crying later, when your spouse abandons you, your children hate you, the IRS and SEC come round with subpoenas and sheriffs, and none of your cohorts will answer your phone calls anymore. (Actually, an unethical person would come crying about the inevitable, but other people would just laugh and say, "You made your own bed.")

In general, an action will have various consequences. There will be the consequence that was the primary goal (the "end"), and various other secondary consequences (e.g. secondary consequences of me baking a cake were that my kitchen got messy, I used 2 hours of my life, etc). These are usually (but not always) negative. In the phrase, "the means" refers to these consequences. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense.

Whether the end justifies the means therefore depends entirely on what the end is, and what the "means" are. Sometime the end will justify the means, and sometimes not. But there is no way that we can say that the end always justifies the means, or that it never should.
As I've said before, no one ever invokes "the ends justifies the means" unless there is some question about it after the fact. If everyone in the house wants the cake, then the means of providing the cake that leaves the kitchen in a mess is obviously justified, before the fact. However, if the person whose job it is to clean the kitchen is barred from getting the benefit of the cake or never wanted it in the first place, then it is going to be harder to justify a means that results in nothing for that person but more work. In order to justify such means, the people who want the cake should be the ones to clean up after their means of getting it, or should provide some other reward at their own expense to benefit the housecleaner to make up for the extra work. In this way, justice -- in the sense of balance or fairness -- would be achieved, and through that, the means would be justified after the fact.

However, if the means are too far out of keeping or proportion to the end, then there is no way to justify them. The murder of millions of poor people would cause so much harm to society, would throw society so out of balance, that it would negate any potential benefit of reducing poverty. There is no way to justify such a means, by any sense of the word. There is no plausible excuse to be made for choosing it over other means, and there is no way to maintain a balanced, just society by doing it.

No, it isn't because it's not ABOUT the same thing. Saying it's the same is like saying The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is the exact same thing as Fear of Flying because they're both books. They are ABOUT different things, so is the difference between adopting "do no harm" as one's sole end to be achieved and adopting "do no harm" as a first principle upon which one bases all one's choices of means to other ends.

except one possible way to enact the first principle (which is a terrible choice of terminology, btw) "do no harm" is in fact identical to your idea of "do no harm" as a person's only end. nobody has just one desired end. the first principle girl has to have other ends in order to leave the house. but that is merely to make her case and the ender's case fundamentally different. if we allow the one other ends to achieve, we must allow both to do so in order to keep the comparison meaningful.

so firstprin adopts some end she wants to see in the world - end2 let's call it. she goes out and performs various actions aimed at creating end2 that are in keeping with "do no harm". fair enough.

but now ender adopts some second end he wants to see in the world - also end2. now he goes out and performs various actions aimed at bring about end2 and in keeping with his first end of not doing harm. what do you know, exactly identical to firstprin. distinction without a difference.

and, of course, the very idea of not doing harm is entirely ends based - one adopts such a position either because one wants to live in a world in which harms are avoided rather than permitted or encouraged, or because you personally do not like harming people and want to live in a world where you don't have to do it. there are no other justifications on offer. and if you didn't desire either of those ends, then you wouldn't adopt the principle in the first place.

For purely pragmatic reasons...I am only saying that one's social relationships will be affected by how principled/ethical or unprincipled/unethical one is.

I have described the effects of having principles/ethics and the effects of having no principles/ethics. When one has them, the result is social relationships built on trust, which has the overall affect of strengthening the social bonds that make society possible. When one does not have them, the result is a lack of trust that undermines and eventually destroys social relationships, thus undermining the bonds that hold society together. I have also pointed out that this destruction of trust tends to backfire onto the unprincipled/unethical person, as shown by countless examples in history.

sounds suspiciously ends-justified to me.

if your ethical principles were really divorced from justification based on ends, then they should be held despite the (possible) fact that following them would have absolutely atrocious consequences. and any beneficial consequences would be purely accidental and shouldn't be brought up in a discussion of why someone should follow ethical principles.

By adopting and following a set of principles, you provide yourself with a universal measure of what you consider to be "right and wrong," "good and bad," "acceptable and unacceptable." I say this measure is universal because it is applicable to all situations. It is not dependent upon context. Maybe it's more accurate to say that the measure applies to YOU, not to the situation, and so the context of it is always YOU, no matter what situation you might be in at any given time. In any event, the measure does not change just because the situation changes, because YOU do not change to suit the situation.

that's nice. but universal vs contextual ethics (which is not nearly as hard and fast a line as people make out anyways) both are ends-justified systems.

No, the killing of the poor is the action(the means), eliminating poverty is the goal(the end). You are simply trying to make the end look bad by conflating the two.

The actual answer here, by the way, is that killing off the current lower class would only cause a new class of poor through hyperinflation. Since it doesn't actually accomplish the end, that particular mean is not justified.

I think you missed the hypothetical... of course this wouldn't eliminate poverty, in the hypothetical situation it would. You have to take for granted that killing the poor would end poverty or else the point is lost.

except one possible way to enact the first principle (which is a terrible choice of terminology, btw)
Don't blame me. I didn't make it up.

"do no harm" is in fact identical to your idea of "do no harm" as a person's only end. nobody has just one desired end. the first principle girl has to have other ends in order to leave the house. but that is merely to make her case and the ender's case fundamentally different. if we allow the one other ends to achieve, we must allow both to do so in order to keep the comparison meaningful.
You're missing my point. Probably deliberately, I think.

so firstprin
Talk about terrible terminology. Yikes, that's stylistically horrid.

adopts some end she wants to see in the world - end2 let's call it. she goes out and performs various actions aimed at creating end2 that are in keeping with "do no harm". fair enough.

but now ender adopts some second end he wants to see in the world - also end2. now he goes out and performs various actions aimed at bring about end2 and in keeping with his first end of not doing harm. what do you know, exactly identical to firstprin. distinction without a difference.
No, it isn't. All you are doing here is saying that unethical/unprincipled people can still be okay people, which is completely different from the point I was making, which I have already explained in detail at least three times and don't feel like explaining again. I refer you back to my earlier posts and to TLR's for counters to this post of yours.

and, of course, the very idea of not doing harm is entirely ends based - one adopts such a position either because one wants to live in a world in which harms are avoided rather than permitted or encouraged, or because you personally do not like harming people and want to live in a world where you don't have to do it. there are no other justifications on offer. and if you didn't desire either of those ends, then you wouldn't adopt the principle in the first place.



sounds suspiciously ends-justified to me.

if your ethical principles were really divorced from justification based on ends, then they should be held despite the (possible) fact that following them would have absolutely atrocious consequences. and any beneficial consequences would be purely accidental and shouldn't be brought up in a discussion of why someone should follow ethical principles.



that's nice. but universal vs contextual ethics (which is not nearly as hard and fast a line as people make out anyways) both are ends-justified systems.
You are simply ignoring whole segments of my and TLR's arguments in order to promote yours. We both have already addressed the nature of what constitutes an "end," especially in the context of "the end jusifies the means." I have addressed in detail both the conceptual and functional differences between an "end" and a "principle/ethic." TLR and I have both addressed the use of utilitarian thinking and the limitations and benefits of utilitarian thinking in considering "ends," "means" and "principles/ethics."

There is no way to answer your current arguments without simply repeating what has already been written because these points have already been addressed, so again, I refer you back to the earlier posts. If you disagree with our thinking, then you just disagree with it. But just forcing me to repeat myself is not going to change my mind. Endlessly quibbling over whether a principle is really an end or whether a means is really an end or whether a means is really a principle, etc, without actually showing any flaws in my argument, is not going to change my mind.

I have answered your objections already. Take my answers or leave them, as you please.

To come back to the cake analogy, I think that a good way of putting it would be to start from the first idea.

We want a cake.

Right, now we have a couple of options for making it (I'm polarising and exaggerating to help make my point clear, I accept that there are many shades in between). We can either carefully measure out the right ingrediants, mixing them in well-contained bowls, then place it in the oven. After time, we will have a cake, but also a tidy kitchen

Or we could pull out all the stops, trow ingrediants into containers with gay abandon, measuring out the right amounts, then simply dumping the excess. We could miss our containers, drop eggs, whatever, before putting the cake in the oven. If we then leave it for the right amount of time, we may still end up with an equally delicious cake. But one hell of a messy kitchen.

But since we have a cake now, does it matter whether the kitchen is messy or clean? After all, the end justifies the means ...

Personally I think the end never justifies the means - but what does that entail? Admittedly, I've never thought this process through. Let's do it together.

Someone tries to rob me - they have a knife and a gun, with the knife withdrawn and pointed at me; the gun is in the side of his pants. I can:

Try to talk my way out of it

Take the gun and threaten him until he backs off (would require significant skill to dodge the knife and reach around and get a hold of it)
Take the gun and tell him to stay still while I call the police on my cell phone
Take the gun and shoot him in the head
Take the gun and shoot him in a non-lethal, yet debilitating area (such as the kneecap)

Disarm the knife from him
Disarm the knife and try to hold him down before he's able to pull out the gun
Disarm the knife and kill him before he's able to pull out the gun (via choking or repeated punches/kicks to the face/stomach/throat)

Take the knife from him (different from disarming, which simply removes the knife from his hand, as opposed to taking it and using it against him)
Take the knife and kill him before he gets the gun
Take the knife and hold it to his throat while taking the gun, then stepping away and aiming the gun at him - calling the police - and waiting for them to arrive

Give him my money


Now, these are of course limited choices, but the options are virtually endless depending on how quick and precise you assume my martial movements can be or how suave I may seem with my words.

It basically comes down to these options:

Talk with him

Kill him

Get him to run away

Get him arrested

Give into his demands


So here's where the "ends justifying the means" comes in:

If I talk with him, I may come to understand why he's robbing me, and may be able to talk him out of it. For the purposes of argument, this option will represent the chaotic good action.

If I kill him, he dies. I get to keep my money, and I can even take whatever money he's got on him, as well as the knife and gun. Let's assume the cops will never trace it back to me. I get off clean, completely. For the purposes of argument, this option will represent the chaotic evil action.

If I get him to run away, we both walk away unharmed and I may walk away with one more knife, gun, or both, than I started with. He doesn't die, but he doesn't gain anything either (monetarily, materially, mentally, morally, or spiritually). For the purposes of argument, this option will represent the neutral action (I don't have a full understanding of how neutrality plays into chaotic and lawful alignments, so I'm going to wear my Shield of Anti-D&D Nerd Technicality Flames +7 while I write this post).

If I get him arrested, he goes to jail. He'll probably become a worse person because of it, in addition to becoming a career criminal, most likely dying a lonely death (at the risk of being overly dramatic) in the soon to far future. Not a good life. Taking this option means to force upon him the law of the nation by means of threats and violence while not caring what happens to him because of it. For the purposes of argument, this option will represent the lawful (anything) action.

If I give into his demands, he takes my money, and may kill me anyway. I don't believe there to be any specific alignment assigned with this action other than stupidity. It doesn't benefit you, because you lose money and possibly your life, and it doesn't benefit him, because once he runs out of the money he took from you he's right back where he started and possibly with a death on his hands.


So, means to the end of what? Well, the means would, indeed, pale in comparison to the end in terms of how it affects him and you on the grand scale, but let's assume you shoot him in the leg because he tried to run while you called the police - the shooting being the means to which you obtained the ends of getting him arrested. He could be crippled for the rest of his life. If your intentions were purely to get him put to justice, rather than to suffer physically as well, then you've gone farther than you wanted to.

So yes, while it's true that the means are simply shades to whatever end color you choose, they do affect you, depending on what your intent behind the end was.

So basically, caring about the means are strictly for the moral folk.

*snips to my huge post*

Also, I could've said this more easily and succinctly by throwing this out:

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Giving and setting being the two opposing means, while the same end is him not being cold. One mean is significantly more compassionate than the other, which seems hostile and psychotic.

No, it isn't. All you are doing here is saying that unethical/unprincipled people can still be okay people

no, i'm not. i am saying that it literally does not matter whether someone holds "do no harm" as a first principle* or an end to strive for. holding everything else equal, then their moral actions will be exactly the same. the only way you arrived at a difference was by having one person maximize only one moral value and having another go after multiple ones. which is completely uninformative and rather trivially silly.

* has anyone ever used first principles in this way? as far as i'm aware, it's usage has been almost exclusively along the lines of the axioms and postulates of logic and mathematics.

We both have already addressed the nature of what constitutes an "end," especially in the context of "the end jusifies the means."

and your usage is incoherent.

I have addressed in detail both the conceptual and functional differences between an "end" and a "principle/ethic." TLR and I have both addressed the use of utilitarian thinking and the limitations and benefits of utilitarian thinking in considering "ends," "means" and "principles/ethics."

but utilitarianism has nothing to do with it. even kant's categorical imperative is aimed at, and justified in reference to, ends.

ethics are systems of ends, systems of expressing the way we want the world to be. they make no sense at all otherwise.

But since we have a cake now, does it matter whether the kitchen is messy or clean? After all, the end justifies the means ...

couldn't it be the case that the end justifies some means but not others? or justifies some means more than others? there is nothing inherent in the idea of ends justifying means that states that absolutely any means will do.

Debateable point, but I think that the nature of the question is that the means must be at least somewhat questionable. And then you get into very complex discussions as to what constitutes "justifiable", or "reasonable", and you tie yourself in knots forming a definition and accounting for why one thing is okay, but another not. So It think that the phrase has to be taken as an absolute, ie that a good end justifies any means.

To come back to the cake analogy, I think that a good way of putting it would be to start from the first idea.

We want a cake.

Right, now we have a couple of options for making it (I'm polarising and exaggerating to help make my point clear, I accept that there are many shades in between). We can either carefully measure out the right ingrediants, mixing them in well-contained bowls, then place it in the oven. After time, we will have a cake, but also a tidy kitchen

Or we could pull out all the stops, trow ingrediants into containers with gay abandon, measuring out the right amounts, then simply dumping the excess. We could miss our containers, drop eggs, whatever, before putting the cake in the oven. If we then leave it for the right amount of time, we may still end up with an equally delicious cake. But one hell of a messy kitchen.

But since we have a cake now, does it matter whether the kitchen is messy or clean? After all, the end justifies the means ...


...no, because then your parents come home, tell you to clean up the mess and eat your cake while you mop the floor :p

*cough* anyway, i dont think you can say "the end always justifies the means" but equally you cant say that the end has no effect on the means

say for example, shooting a guy in battle and shooting a guy cause he wont give you his wallet, same means (killing a guy), completly different ends

I think we should just leave it as "do what you think is right" and say no more about it

Oh, and the example about "gassing the poor to end poverty" just results in people becoming poor as a result, so it doesnt even have a noble end

Debateable point, but I think that the nature of the question is that the means must be at least somewhat questionable. And then you get into very complex discussions as to what constitutes "justifiable", or "reasonable", and you tie yourself in knots forming a definition and accounting for why one thing is okay, but another not. So It think that the phrase has to be taken as an absolute, ie that a good end justifies any means.

i'd argue that what makes some means morally questionable is that they don't mesh well with other ends. if there was only the one end toward which all your ethical behavior ought be aimed, then any means that advanced that end really would be justified. but in a world of multiple ends, a balancing act comes in to play and we have to determine which possible means available to us are best for advancing particular ends while causing the least conflict with other ends. and here is where the real argument is to be had - whether your particular end is valuable enough to warrant the use of means that are in conflict with other ends.

an argument coming at this from a different direction:

1. ends are irrelevant to moral justification
2. killing people is wrong
3. self-preservation is an end
_______
4. killing someone in self defense is wrong


anybody happy with this argument? how about another:

1. ends are irrelevant to moral justification
2. cutting people with knives is wrong
3. preservation of the lives of others is an end
_______
4. performing life-saving surgery is wrong

an argument coming at this from a different direction:

1. ends are irrelevant to moral justification
2. killing people is wrong
3. self-preservation is an end
_______
4. killing someone in self defense is wrong


anybody happy with this argument? how about another:

1. ends are irrelevant to moral justification
2. cutting people with knives is wrong
3. preservation of the lives of others is an end
_______
4. performing life-saving surgery is wrong

Cutting people with knives isn't wrong if it's with their permission and will do no harm that cannot be later completely healed.

Cutting people with knives isn't wrong if it's with their permission and will do no harm that cannot be later completely healed.

that sounds awfully contextual and situational to me...

and it still rules out performing life-saving surgery on people who were already unconscious when the paramedics showed up to the crime scene.

that sounds awfully contextual and situational to me...

and it still rules out performing life-saving surgery on people who were already unconscious when the paramedics showed up to the crime scene.

Technically, yes - let's pull out the unwritten agreement clause cops use for breathalizer tests and edit it for these purposes.

If you enter a hospital or are taken to a hospital, and you have life-threatening problems that they can fix by cutting into you for a brief period of time and later fixing you, then you automatically submit yourself to said cutting.

If when you wake up you wish to file suit, you may do so unless they offer to undo whatever corrective surgery you had and cause a relapse of your previous disease.


Good?

I don't know how anyone could possibly object to "the ends justify the means". I would accept it as axiomatic.

In most counter-examples, the ends aren't the same. Sure, you caught the criminal (the universally desired end), but you also fundamentally reduced everyone's civil rights (another end).

So the means aren't really the problem here; the problem is you've introduced a new end.

Given the same ends, of course the means don't matter.

What about the discussion about the use of torture to extract information as compared to not using torture? Both methods will produce information, so does that then justify torture?

In most counter-examples, the ends aren't the same. Sure, you caught the criminal (the universally desired end), but you also fundamentally reduced everyone's civil rights (another end).

So the means aren't really the problem here; the problem is you've introduced a new end.

yup. it's the conflict between the means and that new end that does all the work on making the objection. essentially they are sneakily arguing that the end doesn't justify the means because this other, unstated and implicit end fundamentally conflicts with those particular means.

yup. it's the conflict between the means and that new end that does all the work on making the objection. essentially they are sneakily arguing that the end doesn't justify the means because this other, unstated and implicit end fundamentally rejects those particular means.

I think you're confusing the terms. If I want to take someone's rights away, that's an end - how I go about doing it is the means, which is, according to you, irrelevant. Let's assume the end is to kill someone - a nuke to the city they're in would do it. End, means. There's no second end, because the person has not taken the further consequences of the means into account, because they're irrelevant to the person as long as the end is accomplished.

What about the discussion about the use of torture to extract information as compared to not using torture? Both methods will produce information, so does that then justify torture?

we'll assume for the sake of argument that both methods produce the info - in real life, the torture doesn't do so. then what matters is the comparison of other ends. in this particular case, whether we want to live in a society which grants the state the unaccountable power to torture people whenever they feel like it.

I think you're confusing the terms. If I want to take someone's rights away, that's an end - how I go about doing it is the means, which is, according to you, irrelevant. Let's assume the end is to kill someone - a nuke to the city they're in would do it. End, means. There's no second end, because the person has not taken the further consequences of the means into account, because they're irrelevant to the person as long as the end is accomplished.

the means aren't irrelevant. they are just justified in terms of ends.

as for nuking a city to kill a guy - if the only ethically valuable end was to kill that guy, then nuking the city would be perfectly right and just. the problem is that that is not the only ethically valuable end. we have other ends we value, such as not starting a nuclear war, and not slaughtering millions of people. hell, our end of preserving aesthetic value in architecture alone is probably enough to throw doubt on the justness of nuking a city to kill some dude.

the means aren't irrelevant. they are just justified in terms of ends.

as for nuking a city to kill a guy - if the only ethically valuable end was to kill that guy, then nuking the city would be perfectly right and just. the problem is that that is not the only ethically valuable end. we have other ends we value, such as not starting a nuclear war, and not slaughtering millions of people. hell, our end of preserving aesthetic value in architecture alone is probably enough to throw doubt on the justness of nuking a city to kill some dude.

Again, there is no ethics to consider when the only thing that matters is the end, and when the end always justifies the means if it is accomplished, regardless of the form the means may take.

The saying is really simple: "The end justifies the means". It doesn't say "The end is justified if the means are ethical" - it gives no points to bargain with other than "If the end is met, the means cannot be questioned because they are justified".

Again, there is no ethics to consider when the only thing that matters is the end, and when the end always justifies the means if it is accomplished, regardless of the form the means may take.

The saying is really simple: "The end justifies the means". It doesn't say "The end is justified if the means are ethical" - it gives no points to bargain with other than "If the end is met, the means cannot be questioned because they are justified".

small problem - the justification in question is an ethical justification. thus it is not the case that every end justifies any means. in fact, if the ends are bad, then no means used to accomplish them can be just.

I think you're confusing the terms. If I want to take someone's rights away, that's an end - how I go about doing it is the means, which is, according to you, irrelevant. Let's assume the end is to kill someone - a nuke to the city they're in would do it. End, means. There's no second end, because the person has not taken the further consequences of the means into account, because they're irrelevant to the person as long as the end is accomplished.
This is exactly what I was complaining about. You've changed the ends when compared the the ends resulting from other means (specifically, whether you destry an entire city), but you're unwilling to admit that's an end.

This is exactly what I was complaining about. You've changed the ends when compared the the ends resulting from other means (specifically, whether you destry an entire city), but you're unwilling to admit that's an end.


To answer the original question requires a concrete situation; it's impossible to make a general statement about means and ends like this. We all have ends, we all have means to get to those ends; because means and ends differ radically depending on the situation, it's impossible to simply say "we should abolish the end justifying the means." Whenever you conciously perform an action, you do so under the impression that the end is worth whatever means you are currently employing to reach that end.

no, i'm not. i am saying that it literally does not matter whether someone holds "do no harm" as a first principle* or an end to strive for. holding everything else equal, then their moral actions will be exactly the same. the only way you arrived at a difference was by having one person maximize only one moral value and having another go after multiple ones. which is completely uninformative and rather trivially silly.
And I'm saying that it matters in a context that is BROADER than merely the specific "end" which to which it is applied in any given instance, but you prefer to insult my argument rather than address it directly.

* has anyone ever used first principles in this way? as far as i'm aware, it's usage has been almost exclusively along the lines of the axioms and postulates of logic and mathematics.
Three examples of the term "first principles" being applied to ethics:

http://www.amazon.com/First-Principles-Philosophy-Metaphysics-Epistemology/dp/0893148253

http://www.4literature.net/Immanuel_Kant/Preface_Introduction__Metaphysical_El/

http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_lawrev_fried_vol32no4.pdf

You mention the author of the second one yourself, further down.

and your usage is incoherent.
I see. You're not able to actually critique my argument, so you'll just issue a blanket dismissal that explains nothing. I can follow my sentences perfectly well. I'll leave it to the other readers of this thread to decide whether my usage is incoherent to anyone other than you.

but utilitarianism has nothing to do with it. even kant's categorical imperative is aimed at, and justified in reference to, ends.

ethics are systems of ends, systems of expressing the way we want the world to be. they make no sense at all otherwise.
That's your opinion, and it is based on your concept of what constitutes an "end," a "means" and an "ethic" or "principle."

Your concepts of these terms happen to differ slightly from mine. I explained my concepts of the terms very clearly. I even cited the standard English dictionary meanings of some of the terms and how I was using them. I also explained how those standard usages fit into how I arrived at my opinion that "the ends justifies the means" is not a valid principle. Your responses have consisted of nothing more than complaining about my usages, but that does not address my argument at all. If you can actually show any flaw in my reasoning that would refute my argument, then do so. Quibbling about terminology and just pointing out that my approach to the issue differs from yours is not even a critique, let alone a refutation of my argument.

small problem - the justification in question is an ethical justification. thus it is not the case that every end justifies any means. in fact, if the ends are bad, then no means used to accomplish them can be just.
But this is another thing you are adding to the phrase. "The end justifies the means" does not demand ethical characterization of the end. It can be applied to any desired end whatsoever, from ending poverty to amassing a lot of personal wealth.

Here's another old saying to consider: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." How could such a saying have any sense at all, under what circumstances would it have been coined, if all ethical ends justified any means of achieving them?

You asked "Is self-defense wrong?" and "Is surgery wrong?" I'll refer you back to the earlier hypothetical in this thread -- "Is it wrong to end poverty by killing people in order to reduce the population?"

Wanting to end poverty is a desireable end, but does that justify wholesale slaughter? Of course not. So reconcile that with your assertion that ethical ends justify the means.

This is exactly what I was complaining about. You've changed the ends when compared the the ends resulting from other means (specifically, whether you destry an entire city), but you're unwilling to admit that's an end.
I think maybe you are confusing "end" with "result." The desired end is to kill a certain person. The chosen means results in a lot of collateral damage, but that is not part of the stated end.

But this is another thing you are adding to the phrase. "The end justifies the means" does not demand ethical characterization of the end. It can be applied to any desired end whatsoever, from ending poverty to amassing a lot of personal wealth.

Here's another old saying to consider: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." How could such a saying have any sense at all, under what circumstances would it have been coined, if all ethical ends justified any means of achieving them?

You asked "Is self-defense wrong?" and "Is surgery wrong?" I'll refer you back to the earlier hypothetical in this thread -- "Is it wrong to end poverty by killing people in order to reduce the population?"

Wanting to end poverty is a desireable end, but does that justify wholesale slaughter? Of course not. So reconcile that with your assertion that ethical ends justify the means.

Muravyets, I'm 90% sure I'm with you on this one, but what do you define as an "ethical end" precisely?

To answer the original question requires a concrete situation; it's impossible to make a general statement about means and ends like this. We all have ends, we all have means to get to those ends; because means and ends differ radically depending on the situation, it's impossible to simply say "we should abolish the end justifying the means." Whenever you conciously perform an action, you do so under the impression that the end is worth whatever means you are currently employing to reach that end.
Which is why I keep saying that one of the major flaws in "the end justifies the means" as a principle is that it is never invoked unless there is serious question as to whether the means can be legitimately justified. If you are certain that the means are appropriate to the end, then you will not need to justify them. The justice of them will be apparent. It is only if the means are not just, that people start pointing to the desired end as a reason why the means should be accepted.

Scenario:

Person A (shaking Person B by the neck): Are you insane?! You just nuked London, you murderous bastard!!"

Person B: But Osama bin Laden was there! You wanted him dead, didn't you? Well, now he is!

Person A: But you nuked London! You killed millions of people.

Person B: The means were justified to end the threat of bin Laden.

Person A (taking B into custody): I disagree.

Person B had the stated end of killing bin Laden. The millions of other deaths were mere collateral damage resulting from the means he chose to gain his end. However, that collateral damage inherent in the means is so great that it arguably negates any benefit from the stated end. Those millions were innocent of bin Laden's crimes. They did not deserve to die for them. The world did not deserve to be poisoned by nuclear fallout. The city of London did not deserve to be destroyed. Because of such grave damage to innocent parties, the means were inherently unjust, regardless of whether the stated end was desirable.

Muravyets, I'm 90% sure I'm with you on this one, but what do you define as an "ethical end" precisely?
I do not define ethical ends. I apply ethics to means, not ends.

In other words, I don't care what you do, I only care about how you do it.

EDIT: I used the phrase "ethical ends" because that was part of Free Soviets argument, to which I was responding. He was claiming that if the end is just, then the means will also be just.

He was claiming that if the end is just, then the means will also be just.

no he wasn't

The end never justifies the means. Never ever. The means has to be justified within itself.

no he wasn't

Tired of actually presenting arguments? Explain yourself, please. You said:

small problem - the justification in question is an ethical justification. thus it is not the case that every end justifies any means. in fact, if the ends are bad, then no means used to accomplish them can be just.

I see two possible meanings for this post. Either (1) "the end justifies the means" has serious flaws, or (2) the means are just if the end is good (the implied flip side of your last sentence). And since you begin by stating the justification is an ethical justification, and you end by making justification dependent on the ends, then, obviously, you must be talking about ethical ends.

And I'm saying that it matters in a context that is BROADER than merely the specific "end" which to which it is applied in any given instance, but you prefer to insult my argument rather than address it directly.

your argument was a comparison between the actions of a person with a single end and a person with a 'first principle' and multiple other ends. it's a meaningless comparison. if we make it a reasonable comparison (by, for example, giving each of them the same context except for the alleged difference between ends and 'first principles'), it turns out that there is absolutely no difference at all. then you started saying i was either insulting or misreading your argument.

if you meant to show this distinction differently, perhaps it would be best if you restated it a different way?

Three examples of the term "first principles" being applied to ethics:

http://www.amazon.com/First-Principles-Philosophy-Metaphysics-Epistemology/dp/0893148253

http://www.4literature.net/Immanuel_Kant/Preface_Introduction__Metaphysical_El/

http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_lawrev_fried_vol32no4.pdf

You mention the author of the second one yourself, further down.

those aren't using it the way you are

I even cited the standard English dictionary meanings of some of the terms and how I was using them.

and if you'll recall, the definition of justification was something like "to demonstrate to be right"

you have insisted on using it to mean something else entirely. remember, what started all of this was that you said "The wrong thing to do is the wrong thing to do, and no...justification will ever make it right." but that is blatantly contradictory as if something is justified then it is right. that's just contained in the meanings of the words. you've done likewise with other words as well. thus my statement on incoherence.

The end never justifies the means. Never ever. The means has to be justified within itself.

and how does one go about doing that? by what possible standard would you justify means without any reference to ends?

The ends can justify the means.

The greatest fictional example of this is from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "In the Pale Moonlight."

In that episode, Sisko realizes he has to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War on the side of the Klingons and Federation.

In order to do this, he hires Elim Garak to help him make a forged holorecording of a meeting between Weyoun and Damar where they supposedly plot the invasion of Romulus.

Tolar , the forger, stabs Quark in his bar. Sisko bribes Quark to shut up about it and not press charges. Garak kills Tolar. Sisko covers it up. Sisko obtains bio weapons which go to a shady group. Garak then sets a bomb aboard a Romulan Senator's ship after he discovers the truth about the recording: "It's a faaaaaaake". The evidence implies the Dominion killed the Senator to stop him from bringing them the recording (As a result of the bomb, any imperfections in the recording appear to be the result of the destruction of the ship). Sisko ended up covering all of this up and brought the Romulans into a conflict in which millions of their citizens would die. (granted most were Remans who are useless cannon-fodder for Romulans)

Either way, this action saves the Alpha Quadrant from the Dominion and wins the war in the long run.


"That is why you came to me, isn't it, captain? Because you knew I could do the things you weren't capable of doing yourself? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you wanted -- a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. If your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant, and all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain."



"At 0800 Hours station time, the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They have already struck 15 bases along the Cardassian border. So this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point of the entire war. There is even a 'welcome to the fight' party tonight in the wardroom. So... I lied, I cheated, I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would. Garak was right about one thing, a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it... because I can live with it... I can live with it. Computer, erase that entire personal log."

Yeah I know this is totally rooted in fiction, but I take any chance I can to talk about my passion, which is "Star Trek." I do find this case fits well with this thread.

your argument was a comparison between the actions of a person with a single end and a person with a 'first principle' and multiple other ends. it's a meaningless comparison. if we make it a reasonable comparison (by, for example, giving each of them the same context except for the alleged difference between ends and 'first principles'), it turns out that there is absolutely no difference at all. then you started saying i was either insulting or misreading your argument.

if you meant to show this distinction differently, perhaps it would be best if you restated it a different way?
The only basis for your objections is still that my approach to the issue and my concept of what constitutes an "end" versus a "principle" is different from yours. No shit my argument doesn't work when we apply your usages of the terms to it. But I have already explained many times how I am using the terms and that they are standard, legitimate usages (even if they are different from yours). So if you want to show flaws in my argument, then look at the argument as it is presented, using the terminology the way I used it (which is completely legitimate) and show me where my reasoning falls apart. Don't just keep pointing out how it doesn't fit with your preferred way of thinking. That is not a refutation.

those aren't using it the way you are
Yes they are, and I find it ironic that you would try to claim this, considering you earlier said you didn't understand how I was using it.

and if you'll recall, the definition of justification was something like "to demonstrate to be right"

you have insisted on using it to mean something else entirely. remember, what started all of this was that you said "The wrong thing to do is the wrong thing to do, and no...justification will ever make it right." but that is blatantly contradictory as if something is justified then it is right. that's just contained in the meanings of the words. you've done likewise with other words as well. thus my statement on incoherence.
You are annoying me. That was the definition I specifically said DID NOT apply to "the ends justifies the means," and I explained why, too. Go back and read it. I have no intention of wasting the precious minutes of my life typing the same arguments over and over for you.

I see two possible meanings for this post. Either (1) "the end justifies the means" has serious flaws, or (2) the means are just if the end is good (the implied flip side of your last sentence). And since you begin by stating the justification is an ethical justification, and you end by making justification dependent on the ends, then, obviously, you must be talking about ethical ends.

no.

firstly, the post that was in response to was taking the phrase to mean that every end justifies any means. or "if the end is met, the means cannot be questioned because they are justified", which is how szanth put it. that has no relation at all to what the phrase means - nobody thinks you can use a bad end to justify anything. that's the context of my statement.

secondly, the flip side of the sentence is not that a good end justifies every means. the flip side is that there exists some means which is justified by a good end.

It doesn't matter. When the end is arrived at, the means are of no more importance. Even if they're horrible, they're history.

It doesn't matter. When the end is arrived at, the means are of no more importance. Even if they're horrible, they're history.

people aren't responsible for their histories?

people aren't responsible for their histories?

People can't change their histories. I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong to kill a thousand people to cure cancer, but if it's done, then cancer is still cured, and those dead people stay dead regardless.

no.

firstly, the post that was in response to was taking the phrase to mean that every end justifies any means. or "if the end is met, the means cannot be questioned because they are justified", which is how szanth put it. that has no relation at all to what the phrase means - nobody thinks you can use a bad end to justify anything. that's the context of my statement.
The poster you were responding to said that because that is what the phrase says. Szanth was insisting on sticking with the meaning of the phrase. But of course, since you seem to be rejecting the idea that ethics can be absolute (or as near to that as a human can get), you would also reject the idea that "the end justifies the means" can also be an absolute. But Szanth is right to the extent of the basic meanings of the words in the phrase. All the qualifications about "good" and "bad" ends are added to it by you. It does not say any such thing.

secondly, the flip side of the sentence is not that a good end justifies every means. the flip side is that there exists some means which is justified by a good end.
Your argument gets weaker by the moment. We've gone from all ethics are ends-oriented and thus all justifications depend on ends, to good ends justify the means of achieving them, and now to good ends only justify some means. And every one of these changes to your argument depends on you adding more information. The flip side I identified is the exact opposite of the words in your original sentence. Now you are changing that statement in order to make this one.

People can't change their histories. I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong to kill a thousand people to cure cancer, but if it's done, then cancer is still cured, and those dead people stay dead regardless.
So, you would not prosecute murderers then? After all, their actions are over and done with by the time they get arrested, and the dead aren't going to get any less dead, so who cares, right?

EDIT: For instance, you would not punish a doctor for breaking the law in order to test cancer drugs on human beings without FDA approval? Let's say, it takes this doctor about 10 years, and 27 different drug formulas before he arrives at one that works, and during that time, he manages to kill over 6000 people. All in direct violation of the law because, for whatever reason, he thinks following the law would be a problem for him. You think he should be excused for that, for all those deaths, for violating the law?

So, you would not prosecute murderers then? After all, their actions are over and done with by the time they get arrested, and the dead aren't going to get any less dead, so who cares, right?

You punish a murderer because he is a dangerous individual. It shouldn't be about revenge.

The poster you were responding to said that because that is what the phrase says. Szanth was insisting on sticking with the meaning of the phrase... All the qualifications about "good" and "bad" ends are added to it by you. It does not say any such thing.

who has ever held that their questionable means have been shown to be right in virtue of the fact that they accomplished their self-admittedly bad ends? i think we could safely dispense with that possibility as a sure sign of madness on the part of the speaker if it has ever come up.

Your argument gets weaker by the moment. We've gone from all ethics are ends-oriented and thus all justifications depend on ends, to good ends justify the means of achieving them, and now to good ends only justify some means. And every one of these changes to your argument depends on you adding more information.

all ethics are ends oriented. that's just a meta-ethical fact. there is no reason to have any ethical system outside of a desire to have to world be a certain way. it's just the point of ethics.

means are justified in relation to our just ends. means that completely conflict with our just ends are unjustified. however, it may be possible that they can conflict with some of our ends to accomplish others, provided that the ends accomplished are of proportionately greater value than the ends violated. my position has not shifted in the slightest.

The flip side I identified is the exact opposite of the words in your original sentence. Now you are changing that statement in order to make this one.

my statement: "if the ends are bad, then no means used to accomplish them can be just"

your 'flip side': "the means are just if the end is good"

i don't see a way to get to your flip from there with logic alone. all that follows as a direct logical flip is "if the means can be just, then the ends are good". but that isn't helpful. and if we are just using the opposite terms, then the negation of "no means can be just" (or "the means cannot be just") is "some means can be just" (or "the means can be just"). but the statement "if the ends are good, then the means can be just" can't be derived from my original statement alone anyways. and you don't get to toss in a universal just for the hell of it.

You punish a murderer because he is a dangerous individual. It shouldn't be about revenge.

So, if it is somehow proved that a pacifist strayed from his theories of nonviolence and killed one person for a specific reason (and the reason can be anything) and it was proved in a court of law that this pacifist would return to his pacifistic ways and be no danger to anyone ever again, he shouldn't be punished? People get a freebie?

You punish a murderer because he is a dangerous individual. It shouldn't be about revenge.

The judgement that he is a dangerous individual, however, must necessarily be based upon his previous history, unless the murderer is caught flagrante delicto, which is rather unlikely. Therefore, history does matter.

I think I understand where you're coming from; ultimately, we should live in the present, and we should not lose ourselves in the past. However, we cannot altogether abandon past events; on the contrary, understanding past events helps us to respond to present situations.

Here's a bit of a controversial statement (or maybe not): Every end is for a good. In fact, people are incapable of not seeking good.

...before I get baraged with protestations, allow me to qualify: obviously, sometimes people choose a lower good over a higher good. Or, in the process of attaining a good, they manage to cut off access to a range of higher goods. But it is impossible not to act for a good; in fact, "evil" is nothing more than "non-being", the space in between one good and another. It doesn't properly exist without being related to a good which does exist; in other words, "it's all good" :cool:

The judgement that he is a dangerous individual, however, must necessarily be based upon his previous history, unless the murderer is caught flagrante delicto, which is rather unlikely. Therefore, history does matter.

I think I understand where you're coming from; ultimately, we should live in the present, and we should not lose ourselves in the past. However, we cannot altogether abandon past events; on the contrary, understanding past events helps us to respond to present situations.

Here's a bit of a controversial statement (or maybe not): Every end is for a good. In fact, people are incapable of not seeking good.

...before I get baraged with protestations, allow me to qualify: obviously, sometimes people choose a lower good over a higher good. Or, in the process of attaining a good, they manage to cut off access to a range of higher goods. But it is impossible not to act for a good; in fact, "evil" is nothing more than "non-being", the space in between one good and another. It doesn't properly exist without being related to a good which does exist in other words, "it's all good" :cool:
I'm kind of into that... I think. I don't know. I'm starting to think of evil as the end result of logical conclusions built on a faulty premise.

How is the strictly utilitarian option necessarily the best one? I say this as a person who usually makes utlitarian decisions. Even though I am generally utilitarian in my outlook, I can still see the limitations of it. I think I illustrated those limitations in my My Lai "karma" example in an earlier post.

My Lai cannot be justified on utilitarian lines.

And here is another flaw in your argument. Who are you to decide whose sacrifice or what kind of sacrifice is necessary or not? I addressed this in my first post, in which I mentioned that the poor being marched into the gas chamber are not likely to think that the end of eliminating poverty justifies murdering them.

No, and I'm not likely to like the idea either. But my moral obligation is to do it anyway.

Do you think the people whose lives will be sacrificed by sparing the poor will think that the ends justify the means in that case? Because it is the same decision. You are not really any less callous; if anything, you are more so. You are choosing between less people dying and more people dying; you can't choose more people dying and claim that your hands are somehow clean.

So, too, the few you choose not to save are not going to thank you for your generosity to the many. The people who loved them are also likely to hate you for it, and even the ones who are glad you killed someone else rather than them, are still likely to suspect that it'll be their turn the next time the snacks run low. After they have a chance to think about it -- especially once the food sources are restored -- the entire population you "saved" are likely to decide your actions were not justified at all.

They may do so, but the justification remains. They can hate me for it all they like - they still took the food, they still prefered to live.

This argument depends on the presumption that death is the worst possible outcome. But those who choose to die rather than do something they think is wrong obviously do not agree with that. Therefore, your assumption is not unassailable. Obviously, it is possible to disagree. TLR hinted at this when he suggested that a life of "ends justifying means" is a hellish life that leads to the suffering of bad karma. You do something wrong to preserve your life; that means you get to spend the rest of your life suffering the guilt and shame of what you did. I'd rather be dead than hopelessly ashamed of myself.

Fine; in that case, the correct decision would be not to undertake the action. If you prefer to die, then so be it - you have that option as well. But you are morally justified in making the other decision if you so choose, and if it is other people whose lives are at stake, and they prefer to live, you are morally obligated to prevent more death over less death.

The first paragraph negates the second one by the use of the word "should."

First you acknowledge that the actions are not justified but say they should be. Then in your next sentence, you say they actually are justified. You can't have it both ways. They either are or they aren't.

No, they are justified. The law might or might not treat them as justified; I'm not concerned with the law in this case, because the law does not dictate moral obligation. That's all I meant.

What you really mean here is that YOU think they should be justified, but the mere existence of your opinion is not an argument that would convince anyone else. WHY should they be justified? Because fewer people die as a result? But again, which people and who gets to decide?

Whichever arrangement will save the greatest number. If the lives saved are equal, it should be done by lottery.

As for "who gets to decide," whoever's capable of doing so. The moral obligation remains whatever the social arrangement.

You claim to be protecting the moral equality of human beings, but I don't see you standing in line to commit suicide for the good of the many.

My level of moral perfection is irrelevant. I would indeed have a moral obligation to sacrifice my life to the lives of others were the choice between my death and a greater number of others, if that is your question.

All I see is you playing god and claiming that you are justified in doing so.

"Playing God" is not avoidable. Either way, you are sentencing people to death. You must a decision one way or another - less people will die, or more people will die. The only way I can see it argued that more people dying is preferable is through some kind of appeal to moral purity - I will avoid being the direct cause of their deaths if I refrain from doing this, or something to that effect. But this is nothing but selfishness. Indeed, this is an even starker case of the ends justifying the means than anything I have proposed. It is saying that the end of my moral purity is worth the means of the sacrifice of other people's lives. That is not a moral course of action.

If I am truly moral, my basis for caring about their lives will not be that I wish to avoid being a murderer. I will care about their lives for their worth in themselves - I will see them as worthy of protection period, whatever my involvement. And I will act accordingly.

There are historical precedents for this, too. For instance, Robespierre claimed he had to guillotine all those aristocrats, and not just them, but everyone who worked for them, and then everyone who owned too much property or had too much money, and then anyone who criticized the revolution, and then anyone who criticized him, all for the good of the many, until a few people decided it would be for the good of the many to guillotine Robespierre. And the crowd cheered just as loudly for his head as they had for the king's, and for the same reason.

Yes, when someone makes unjustified utilitarian arguments - when someone uses unjust means for unjust ends, or disproportionately unjust means for just ends - and attempts to excuse herself through appeal to Utilitarianism, they are no better than those who do not excuse themselves. But this in and of itself is not an argument against Utilitarianism.

Um...if you sacrifice everyone's life, then there are no few who continue to live.

When did I propose sacrificing everyone's life?

I'm kind of into that... I think. I don't know. I'm starting to think of evil as the end result of logical conclusions built on a faulty premise.

Oh, I definitely agree with you on that. However, I'd go a bit further---however ultimately faulty those premises are, however flawed their conclusions, nevertheless said premises and conclusions are based off a good. Choosing "evil" is a state of opaqueness or ignorance, where one cannot properly distinguish a higher (and hence more choice-worthy) good from a lower.

Oh, I definitely agree with you on that. However, I'd go a bit further---however ultimately faulty those premises are, however flawed their conclusions, nevertheless said premises and conclusions are based off a good. Choosing "evil" is a state of opaqueness or ignorance, where one cannot properly distinguish a higher (and hence more choice-worthy) good from a lower.

Yeah... thats why I'm not sure if I agree with you. It seems to be giving some people too much credit. But that might be more of a Sociopath type of thing.

Yeah... thats why I'm not sure if I agree with you. It seems to be giving some people too much credit. But that might be more of a Sociopath type of thing.

I can see why you'd be uncertain, but I'm not sure it really does give people too much credit; look at it this way: the stupider you are about choosing an appropriate end and an appropriate means, the less good you yourself are.

It just seems to me impossible that anybody would willingly seek anything other than a good.

I guess one of the reasons why I favor this argument is because I don't think that any action, in and of itself, is "evil", unless it implies some kind of wrong-ness by definition (i.e. murder as an "unlawful killing").

I can see why you'd be uncertain, but I'm not sure it really does give people too much credit; look at it this way: the stupider you are about choosing an appropriate end and an appropriate means, the less good you yourself are.

It just seems to me impossible that anybody would willingly seek anything other than a good.

I guess one of the reasons why I favor this argument is because I don't think that any action, in and of itself, is "evil", unless it implies some kind of wrong-ness by definition (i.e. murder as an "unlawful killing").

I'm being won over by this....

I think maybe you are confusing "end" with "result." The desired end is to kill a certain person. The chosen means results in a lot of collateral damage, but that is not part of the stated end.
They're all outcomes. You can't just dismiss them.

If all I care about is the death of this one man, and nothing else is relevant, then what you're saying makes sense. But only then. As soon as the acting agent cares about the state of the city when he's done with it, that's an end.

You punish a murderer because he is a dangerous individual. It shouldn't be about revenge.
No you don't. You punish a murderer to discourage future murders.

If all I care about is the death of this one man, and nothing else is relevant, then what you're saying makes sense. But only then. As soon as the acting agent cares about the state of the city when he's done with it, that's an end.

of course, the agent might also just be wrong in only caring about one end. in which case his single end would not justify his means because he should have cared about other ends too.

As is patently obvious from my name, I believe in the exact opposite. Who cares how something was done as long as it was done?

Someone with a sense of ethics and morals, that's who.

of course, the agent might also just be wrong in only caring about one end. in which case his single end would not justify his means because he should have cared about other ends too.
You're awfully normative today.

I don't think the agent can be wrong about caring about one end. Your preferences aren't subject to moral judgement.

Someone with a sense of ethics and morals, that's who.
That only enters into it if you misidentify the ends.

That only enters into it if you misidentify the ends.

Explain. How is it not possible to employ unethical means so long as one defines the desired result?

Your preferences aren't subject to moral judgement.

How can your actions be, then?

I don't think the agent can be wrong about caring about one end. Your preferences aren't subject to moral judgement.

This only works if you accept that everyone's ultimate end is the good; however even then one must point out that often times people are mistaken about this end, and choose a lower good over a higher good.

Explain. How is it not possible to employ unethical means so long as one defines the desired result?
If all of the ends are moral and/or ethical, how can the means be otherwise?

If the means lead to no consequence that is immoral/unethical, then it's not possible for the means to immoral/unethical. The means can't be immoral/unethical notwithstanding their characteristics.

If all of the ends are moral and/or ethical, how can the means be otherwise?

If the means lead to no consequence that is immoral/unethical, then it's not possible for the means to immoral/unethical. The means can't be immoral/unethical notwithstanding their characteristics.

I have to disagree. One can easily have an "ethical" end (indeed, it is impossible for a human being not to desire the good), but achieve by an immoral means.

Example: You have a heart condition, and will soon die. Surely it is ethical if I attempt to save your life, right?

But if I stab somebody I have arbitrarily picked off the street and remove their heart in order to save your life, sure the means are unethical?

How can your actions be, then?
I find it very interesting you would ask that. Does one have control over one's preferences? I like rice pudding; is it my fault I like rice pudding?

Imagine I have preferences which, should they come to be represented in the world, you would find the world repugnant. Now, further imagine they have not. Am I morally responsible for any negative outcome? Or even complicit, given that my preferences aren't impacting the world at all?

My preferences don't affect anything. They don't have direct consequences. As such, how can they have moral value?

I have to disagree. One can easily have an "ethical" end (indeed, it is impossible for a human being not to desire the good), but achieve by an immoral means.

Example: You have a heart condition, and will soon die. Surely it is ethical if I attempt to save your life, right?

But if I stab somebody I have arbitrarily picked off the street and remove their heart in order to save your life, sure the means are unethical?
So are the ends. You've killed a man.

This only works if you accept that everyone's ultimate end is the good; however even then one must point out that often times people are mistaken about this end, and choose a lower good over a higher good.
That would only be true in the presence of moral realism. Without moral realism, can one be mistaken about morality?

If one can be mistaken about morality, that suggests I don't understand moral relativism at all.

So are the ends. You've killed a man.

The end was not to kill a man, but to save a life. Killing the man was the means to save that life.

That would only be true in the presence of moral realism. Without moral realism, can one be mistaken about morality?

If one can be mistaken about morality, that suggests I don't understand moral relativism at all.

I'm arguing for moral realism. Moral relativity is little more than nihilism, or so it seems to me.

As such, how can they have moral value?

They have none, if you overcome them with other preferences - that is, if you truly ensure that they have no impact.

But preferences as a whole are the reasons behind your actions; if your actions are morally relevant, I don't see how your preferences, viewed completely, could be anything else.

The end was not to kill a man, but to save a life. Killing the man was the means to save that life.
But his death was also an end. The only way it fails to be an end is if you're truly indifferent to it, in which case you have acheived your ends and the means are therefore acceptable.

I'm arguing for moral realism. Moral relativity is little more than nihilism, or so it seems to me.
I've often thought the same of moral realitivism, but that's not a refutation of the position.

Plus, I'll find it difficult to argue with you and Soheran at the same time, given that you're a moral realist and he's not.

They have none, if you overcome them with other preferences - that is, if you truly ensure that they have no impact.

But preferences as a whole are the reasons behind your actions; if your actions are morally relevant, I don't see how your preferences, viewed completely, could be anything else.
Okay, so you're examining the set of preferences as a whole. Okay, sure, that works. That set of preferences governs every action you ever take.

Though, that was the basis behind my assertion that all actions are selfish.

who has ever held that their questionable means have been shown to be right in virtue of the fact that they accomplished their self-admittedly bad ends? i think we could safely dispense with that possibility as a sure sign of madness on the part of the speaker if it has ever come up.
We could easily dismiss that first sentence on the grounds that it seems a bit mad. It seems to me you're having trouble keeping track of the debate.

all ethics are ends oriented. that's just a meta-ethical fact. there is no reason to have any ethical system outside of a desire to have to world be a certain way. it's just the point of ethics.
Oh, it is, is it? And when did you write that treatise, Mr. Socrates?

means are justified in relation to our just ends.
Which is just an inverse way of saying the ends justify the means. Nice attempt to conclude the argument by citing its opening question.

means that completely conflict with our just ends are unjustified.
Now explain how a means that delivers the end can conflict with the end.

So, since nuking the city where your enemy lives would deliver the end of killing your enemy, you would say that nuking the city is a justified means, then, since it's not in conflict with the end.

however, it may be possible that they can conflict with some of our ends to accomplish others, provided that the ends accomplished are of proportionately greater value than the ends violated.
Another slightly mad sentence. Are you feeling tired?

my position has not shifted in the slightest.
Just as wrong as when you started.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)


my statement: "if the ends are bad, then no means used to accomplish them can be just"

your 'flip side': "the means are just if the end is good"

i don't see a way to get to your flip from there with logic alone. all that follows as a direct logical flip is "if the means can be just, then the ends are good". but that isn't helpful. and if we are just using the opposite terms, then the negation of "no means can be just" (or "the means cannot be just") is "some means can be just" (or "the means can be just"). but the statement "if the ends are good, then the means can be just" can't be derived from my original statement alone anyways. and you don't get to toss in a universal just for the hell of it.
Is playing dense one of your hobbies?

Your statement: "in fact, if the ends are bad, then no means used to accomplish them can be just."

In other words: "The means are unjust if the end is bad," meaning that a bad end renders the means unjust.

FLIP: "If the ends are good, then the means used to accomplish them can be just." That is an exact flip.

In other words: "the means are just if the end is good," meaning that a good end renders the means just. See the city nuking hypothetical above.

So long as you continue to make the justice of means dependent upon the nature of the ends, then you cannot get out of this trap you have put yourself into. It will always be possible to claim that bad means are justified by the ends, and you will not be able to claim that "the ends justify the means" only applies to the means and ends you approve of.

The judgement that he is a dangerous individual, however, must necessarily be based upon his previous history, unless the murderer is caught flagrante delicto, which is rather unlikely. Therefore, history does matter.
That's not how the law works, though. Past acts are not admissable as evidence against a person unless they can be shown to be directly connected to the current crime for which he is being tried. If you arrest a guy for killing Bob today, you must try and convict him for having killed Bob today, not for having killed Kenny three years ago.

And you didn't answer the question: If a person has never committed another violent crime in the past, and is fairly guaranteed never to do it again in the future, should he be given a pass? One free murder, as it were?

I think I understand where you're coming from; ultimately, we should live in the present, and we should not lose ourselves in the past. However, we cannot altogether abandon past events; on the contrary, understanding past events helps us to respond to present situations.

Here's a bit of a controversial statement (or maybe not): Every end is for a good. In fact, people are incapable of not seeking good.

...before I get baraged with protestations, allow me to qualify: obviously, sometimes people choose a lower good over a higher good. Or, in the process of attaining a good, they manage to cut off access to a range of higher goods. But it is impossible not to act for a good; in fact, "evil" is nothing more than "non-being", the space in between one good and another. It doesn't properly exist without being related to a good which does exist; in other words, "it's all good" :cool:
That's not a controversial statement. It's a nonsensical statement.

My Lai cannot be justified on utilitarian lines.
It can't be justified on any lines, utilitarian or otherwise, but it did actually happen in real life, so it cannot be ignored. Neither can you ignore the fact that those who were involved in it did try, for many years, to justify it (tried and failed), so it stands as a good example of the failure of justification after the fact. In other words, the failure of "the ends justify the means."

No, and I'm not likely to like the idea either. But my moral obligation is to do it anyway.
Then kill yourself first. Otherwise, why the hell should I accept your claim to such authority over life and death? If it comes down to "one of us must die," why should that one be me instead of you?

Do you think the people whose lives will be sacrificed by sparing the poor will think that the ends justify the means in that case? Because it is the same decision. You are not really any less callous; if anything, you are more so. You are choosing between less people dying and more people dying; you can't choose more people dying and claim that your hands are somehow clean.
When the hell did I ever claim my hands would be clean of anything? I may be callous, but at least I'm honest about it. I'm not protecting my own life but pretending I'm doing it for the sake of others. And I'm also more respectful of others because I am willing to run the same risk of death as I ask everyone else to face.

They may do so, but the justification remains. They can hate me for it all they like - they still took the food, they still prefered to live.
Then it is a false justification. In other words, the kind of justification that is nothing more than an excuse. You have failed to show me any real justice in your decision. You have failed to show how any of the objections I raised would not be valid. You have merely ignored them, and your argument is really nothing more than, "It's justified if I say it is."

Fine; in that case, the correct decision would be not to undertake the action. If you prefer to die, then so be it - you have that option as well. But you are morally justified in making the other decision if you so choose, and if it is other people whose lives are at stake, and they prefer to live, you are morally obligated to prevent more death over less death.
Nonsense. How does one follow from the other? I may choose to die, but if I choose not to, how does that obligate me to kill someone else? I can choose to let nature take its course or to let fate play itself out, or whatever. I can choose to take no action.

You are making an odd assumption that you are somehow in charge of making these life and death decisions for others, as if you are some absolute tyrant. Well, the fact is, you have no guarantee, once you start acting on what you call your "moral obligation," that your populace will not take action to stop you from doing it, if (a) they don't want to be sacrificed and (b) they don't trust you to pick who to sacrifice. I have pointed this out to you several times. You choose to ignore it, but ignoring it doesn't make your argument less shakey.

(Btw, Free Soviets isn't the only person I don't like having to repeat myself for.)

No, they are justified. The law might or might not treat them as justified; I'm not concerned with the law in this case, because the law does not dictate moral obligation. That's all I meant.
As I said, you have failed to show how your decision is moral rather than self-serving.

Whichever arrangement will save the greatest number. If the lives saved are equal, it should be done by lottery.

As for "who gets to decide," whoever's capable of doing so. The moral obligation remains whatever the social arrangement.
And what will you do if the population doesn't want to play your lottery? What will you do if there is disagreement about who is capable of making such decisions? What will your "moral obligation" make you do then? What means will your "moral obligation" justify then?

My level of moral perfection is irrelevant. I would indeed have a moral obligation to sacrifice my life to the lives of others were the choice between my death and a greater number of others, if that is your question.
Excellent. You will, no doubt, also be ready to set the example for others by going first.

*plans what to do about crisis once weirdo who wants to kill people is out of the way*


"Playing God" is not avoidable.
LOL. Yes, actually, it is.

Either way, you are sentencing people to death. You must a decision one way or another - less people will die, or more people will die. The only way I can see it argued that more people dying is preferable is through some kind of appeal to moral purity - I will avoid being the direct cause of their deaths if I refrain from doing this, or something to that effect. But this is nothing but selfishness. Indeed, this is an even starker case of the ends justifying the means than anything I have proposed. It is saying that the end of my moral purity is worth the means of the sacrifice of other people's lives. That is not a moral course of action.
Your course cannot be considered moral either, unless you can show any justice to (a) your choice of who to kill, and (b) the choice of the person who makes that choice. You have not done so. You have given no reason why anyone should trust you (or anyone) to make such decisions, so as someone who would be asked to trust you, I would decline to do so, and I would decline to be sacrificed by you.

If I am truly moral, my basis for caring about their lives will not be that I wish to avoid being a murderer. I will care about their lives for their worth in themselves - I will see them as worthy of protection period, whatever my involvement. And I will act accordingly.
But only some of them. Only the ones you choose to save.

Yes, when someone makes unjustified utilitarian arguments - when someone uses unjust means for unjust ends, or disproportionately unjust means for just ends - and attempts to excuse herself through appeal to Utilitarianism, they are no better than those who do not excuse themselves. But this in and of itself is not an argument against Utilitarianism.
I wasn't arguing against Utilitarianism (when did you decide to start capitalizing it?). I was merely pointing out the limitations of purely utilitarian thinking.

When did I propose sacrificing everyone's life?
These debates would be so much easier if people would read their own posts. You didn't propose it. You tried to imply that I was proposing it, and the statement you made about it was illogical:

Originally posted by Soheran

Isn't it even worse an act to sacrifice everyone's lives so that a few can live longer?

I merely pointed out the illogic.

Btw, that's from your post #84, and you made me read all the way back to page 6 to find it. Don't do that again, please.

This only works if you accept that everyone's ultimate end is the good; however even then one must point out that often times people are mistaken about this end, and choose a lower good over a higher good.
Also, people often disagree about what constitutes a "good," of any level.

Oh, I definitely agree with you on that. However, I'd go a bit further---however ultimately faulty those premises are, however flawed their conclusions, nevertheless said premises and conclusions are based off a good. Choosing "evil" is a state of opaqueness or ignorance, where one cannot properly distinguish a higher (and hence more choice-worthy) good from a lower.
No, I'm sorry, this won't work because there are people who choose to do evil. They make a conscious choice to do this. I'm thinking about criminals such as Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez. Such people are out for their own gain, but they do not characterize that as a "good." They are pursuing some vision of evil for their own purposes.

Plus, your notion that people only act for good just gives credit to self-serving liars who know perfectly well that what they are doing is bad and that they are doing it only to benefit themselves selfishly, but who dress up their motives as "good" also in order to benefit themselves. For instance, mob bosses such as John Gotti love to brag about the benefits they bring to their communities. They are just flat-out lying, about both their actions and their motives.

They're all outcomes. You can't just dismiss them.

If all I care about is the death of this one man, and nothing else is relevant, then what you're saying makes sense. But only then. As soon as the acting agent cares about the state of the city when he's done with it, that's an end.
Then you agree with me because that is precisely the way I meant it.

No you don't. You punish a murderer to discourage future murders.
Some people think that, but many studies indicate it doesn't work.

Other thinking has it that you punish a murderer as a form of payback. He must suffer damage commensurate as much as possible with the damage he did to others.

Some people think that, but many studies indicate it doesn't work.

Other thinking has it that you punish a murderer as a form of payback. He must suffer damage commensurate as much as possible with the damage he did to others.
Though myself, I don't beleive the law should indulge in payback. Just in protecting people from the murderer.

If all of the ends are moral and/or ethical, how can the means be otherwise?

If the means lead to no consequence that is immoral/unethical, then it's not possible for the means to immoral/unethical. The means can't be immoral/unethical notwithstanding their characteristics.
This contradicts your earlier statement that, if a person only cares about killing one person, then he would not be justified in nuking a whole city to do it. The original hypothetical assumed the target for assassination to be Osama bin Laden (leaving aside, of course, for the sake of argument, the idea that it is never moral or ethical to assassinate someone).

Assuming that assassinating bin Laden would be a moral/ethical end, then by your reasoning, nuking London as the means to do it would also moral/ethical.

Though myself, I don't beleive the law should indulge in payback. Just in protecting people from the murderer.
I'm just pointing out the viewpoint. It's a complicated issue, and I haven't reached a firm opinion about it, myself.

My hesitation about the protecting people from the murderer angle is that it smacks of punishing a person for crimes he hasn't committed yet.

I'm just pointing out the viewpoint. It's a complicated issue, and I haven't reached a firm opinion about it, myself.

My hesitation about the protecting people from the murderer angle is that it smacks of punishing a person for crimes he hasn't committed yet.If he's a murderer he's committed the crime already. Though we lack the psychic ability to tell if he'll ever commit another murder, most don't.

If he's a murderer he's committed the crime already. Though we lack the psychic ability to tell if he'll ever commit another murder, most don't.
If he already committed the crime, then how are you protecting society from it or him? And if he will never commit another crime, then why do we need to be protected from him for years after that one crime, from which we were not protected? This is why I say that most of the law is remedial, not preventative. It comes in after the fact and tries to set things right in some way. But the damage has already been done and the victims and society have already suffered from it.

Remember, I know of no studies that show that laws against murder deter murder. So the mere existence of such laws is not a protection.

Some people think that, but many studies indicate it doesn't work.
It may not work (though those studies typically examine only people who've committed crimes, so of course the deterrence didn't work), but I can't think of another reason to punish people. If there's no positive outcome, then it's just malicious.
Other thinking has it that you punish a murderer as a form of payback. He must suffer damage commensurate as much as possible with the damage he did to others.
Like that. That's vengeance. Or Malice. You're making him suffer because he made others suffer. But what good does that do anyone?

I maintain that deterrence works because deterrence is why I don't commit crimes.

It may not work (though those studies typically examine only people who've committed crimes, so of course the deterrence didn't work), but I can't think of another reason to punish people. If there's no positive outcome, then it's just malicious.

Like that. That's vengeance. Or Malice. You're making him suffer because he made others suffer. But what good does that do anyone?

I maintain that deterrence works because deterrence is why I don't commit crimes.

I don't care. I was only pointing out that different concepts exist as to what legal penalties are for, so that your opinion that they're all about deterrence can't be the end of the argument. That matter is not so settled as to stand as fact.

This contradicts your earlier statement that, if a person only cares about killing one person, then he would not be justified in nuking a whole city to do it. The original hypothetical assumed the target for assassination to be Osama bin Laden (leaving aside, of course, for the sake of argument, the idea that it is never moral or ethical to assassinate someone).
Did I say he wouldn't be justified, or just that it would change the ends?

If he cares solely about killing that one person, and has no concern whatever for the rest of the city, then abslutely he's justified in nuking the whole city. But I think it's highly unlikely that he would care not at all for the rest of the city.

Did I say he wouldn't be justified, or just that it would change the ends?
You never said anything about changing the ends. Perhaps you meant to, but it didn't come out in your posts. Go compare them.

If he cares solely about killing that one person, and has no concern whatever for the rest of the city, then abslutely he's justified in nuking the whole city. But I think it's highly unlikely that he would care not at all for the rest of the city.
This argument is as amoral, even sociopathic, as one has to be to cite "the ends justify the means." Nuking a whole city to kill just one man is NOT justified because the damage done by it is so far out of proportion to what is needed to accomplish the end.

Consider the nature of justification: Who is it for? Who do you have to justify your actions to? Yourself? Please. Justifying one's own actions to oneself is moral masturbation -- an empty exercise. Be honest about it, nobody needs to justify their own choices because our choices reflect our desires, and in that case, "because I want to" is all the reason needed.

So who is asking for justification for our actions? Obviously, other people. Other people -- those are the ones who don't give a rat's ass about what YOU think or want, and you are going to have a hard goddamned time justifying such actions to the rest of humanity, who are in a position, btw, to punish you for doing things they don't think are justified.

So, don't tell me how you think you would be justified in nuking London to kill bin Laden. Tell me why I should think you were justified in doing it. Let's see how many classic, failed justifications, defenses, and excuses you can come up with. (By "classic failed etc" I mean ones that have often been used by criminals who got convicted anyway.)

It can't be justified on any lines, utilitarian or otherwise, but it did actually happen in real life, so it cannot be ignored. Neither can you ignore the fact that those who were involved in it did try, for many years, to justify it (tried and failed), so it stands as a good example of the failure of justification after the fact. In other words, the failure of "the ends justify the means."

Since I'm not claiming that the ends justified the means in that case, the point is irrelevant.

Then kill yourself first. Otherwise, why the hell should I accept your claim to such authority over life and death? If it comes down to "one of us must die," why should that one be me instead of you?

Who said it should be?

When the hell did I ever claim my hands would be clean of anything? I may be callous, but at least I'm honest about it. I'm not protecting my own life but pretending I'm doing it for the sake of others.

Nor are most advocates of "the ends justify the means," except perhaps when they are politicians.

And I'm also more respectful of others because I am willing to run the same risk of death as I ask everyone else to face.

And we are not?

Then it is a false justification. In other words, the kind of justification that is nothing more than an excuse. You have failed to show me any real justice in your decision. You have failed to show how any of the objections I raised would not be valid. You have merely ignored them, and your argument is really nothing more than, "It's justified if I say it is."

Your objections have nothing to do with the point. The fact that the people may kill me afterwards has nothing to do with the justice of the act. If anything, it serves merely as a rebuttal to your notion that the only possible motive for "ends justify the means" is selfishness.

Nonsense. How does one follow from the other? I may choose to die, but if I choose not to, how does that obligate me to kill someone else?

I didn't say it did. If it is your life at stake, you have no moral obligation to protect it. But when others' lives are at stake, you do, because your choice to take on a risk or to accept a consequence cannot justly be forced on others.

You are making an odd assumption that you are somehow in charge of making these life and death decisions for others, as if you are some absolute tyrant. Well, the fact is, you have no guarantee, once you start acting on what you call your "moral obligation," that your populace will not take action to stop you from doing it, if (a) they don't want to be sacrificed and (b) they don't trust you to pick who to sacrifice. I have pointed this out to you several times. You choose to ignore it, but ignoring it doesn't make your argument less shakey.

Fine. The population may try to stop me. So?

Difficulty has never been a convincing rebuttal to moral obligation. Impossibility might be, but then the logic of "the ends justify the means" is irrelevant; the (attempted) means do not achieve the ends, because they fail.

I do not argue that all factors should not be taken into account when considering what means to use to achieve the ends.

As I said, you have failed to show how your decision is moral rather than self-serving.

You have failed to show that it is self-serving at all, and I have repeatedly pointed out that preserving lives is a good thing. (Is it not?)

And what will you do if the population doesn't want to play your lottery?

Depends on the circumstances. If there are other viable means that are proportionate to the ends, I will undertake them.

What will you do if there is disagreement about who is capable of making such decisions?

Try my best to bring people around to my point of view, knowing that I probably cannot do it alone.

What will your "moral obligation" make you do then? What means will your "moral obligation" justify then?

That which is necessary, assuming it remains proportionate to the ends.

Excellent. You will, no doubt, also be ready to set the example for others by going first.

Whether or not I am "ready" is irrelevant to my moral obligation, which is to do so if it will serve the purpose, and not if it will not.

*plans what to do about crisis once weirdo who wants to kill people is out of the way*

That's actually a good question. What would you do? Let everyone die?

LOL. Yes, actually, it is.

So you have an alternative to causing death? I'd like to hear it.

Your course cannot be considered moral either, unless you can show any justice to (a) your choice of who to kill, and (b) the choice of the person who makes that choice.

The world is quite unjust as it stands.

There is no "justice" to whom I choose to kill. This is obvious; all bloodshed is a wrong, and any such decision will have a degree of arbitrariness. But the point is that the injustice of killing them is outweighed by the injustice of everyone dying. This is what you have persistently ignored.

I need not show that my course of action is just in some absolute sense. I need merely show that it is more just than the alternatives.

You have not done so. You have given no reason why anyone should trust you (or anyone) to make such decisions,

That is a different question entirely. I happen to think that in many cases (say, torture), no one should be legally invested with the power to make that sort of decision, because it is too open to abuse. It does not follow that the course of action is never justified, however - just that it rarely is.

But only some of them. Only the ones you choose to save.

No. All of them. My objective is thus to save as many as possible.

These debates would be so much easier if people would read their own posts. You didn't propose it. You tried to imply that I was proposing it, and the statement you made about it was illogical:

What's illogical about it?

And it is exactly what you are proposing. Either everyone dies from the scarcity of food, or some people are killed to permit enough food for the rest. You can always just object to the proposed situation, but as I pointed out before, to do so is to miss the point; no one is claiming that the horrendous means should be used if they are not necessary.

Soheran, I was going to reply point for point, but the following remark early in your post pretty much pissed me off so much that I can't be bothered to waste any more time chasing around this circle with you. The remark is:


Who said it should be?
You did. Your entire hypothetical has been framed as a scenario in which YOU decide to sacrifice a few others in order to save many others. I am using YOUR hypothetical. If you want to change it now, then start a fresh argument with a fresh scenario. Don't pull that BS of making me sift through your old posts to show you what you've been saying all along like you did before.

Here's my stance:

Your scenario, as framed by you, puts you in the position to decide the life and death of others. You have not justified why you -- or any other person -- should be in such a position at all. You claim you have a "moral obligation" to save people, but by carrying out the means you yourself outlined, then it is just as appropriate and more practical to say that you are claiming a moral obligation to kill people, since you cannot save the many except by killing the few. Yet you fail to show the origin of this supposed "moral obligation." How am I to judge its morality or how obligatory it is, if you cannot even tell me how you came up with this notion?

You try to weasel out of the need to justify your means by saying that there is no justice to killing people. Cute attempt to cop out, but it won't work in a thread that is all about "the ends justify the means."

You also try to claim that you would sacrifice yourself to save the many, only that competely negates your own scenario, because once you are dead, who is going to realize your end of saving the many by killing the few? So, since it negates the hypothetical, it is pointless to bring it in. If you want to discuss whether it is justified to commit suicide in order to save others, then you'll have to start afresh.

And finally, you also try to claim that you're not arguing that the ends justify the means, despite the fact that you are still trying to argue that killing a few is justified as a means of saving many. So, that claim, at least, is just pure bullshit. There may be more than BS behind the other problems, listed above -- or there might not be. It's hard to tell.

I've had it with this. I have shown you several times the flaws in your argument. Either improve it or come up with something new.

You did.

No, I didn't. Nowhere.

Your entire hypothetical has been framed as a scenario in which YOU decide to sacrifice a few others in order to save many others.

Yes... but I am merely using myself as an example. Everyone else has the same moral obligation.

Would you prefer I invent a hypothetical person instead?

I am using YOUR hypothetical. If you want to change it now, then start a fresh argument with a fresh scenario.

I don't think that's necessary.

Your scenario, as framed by you, puts you in the position to decide the life and death of others. You have not justified why you -- or any other person -- should be in such a position at all.

There is no justification. Send a letter of complaint to the universe; I'm not God, I didn't make the rules.

All my argument is concerned with is how to make that decision once it is in a person's hands. (And do not pretend that inaction is any less a decision than action is. Either way, you are deciding whether others should live or die.)

You claim you have a "moral obligation" to save people, but by carrying out the means you yourself outlined, then it is just as appropriate and more practical to say that you are claiming a moral obligation to kill people, since you cannot save the many except by killing the few.

A moral obligation to kill, if necessary, in the service of a greater preservation of life, yes.

Do you hold that killing is always wrong?

Yet you fail to show the origin of this supposed "moral obligation."

It arises from the obligation to preserve life. If I accept that the preservation of life is a good, then I should be prepared to maximize it; if killing people is necessary to maximize it, so be it. The alternative is worse - more people dying.

You try to weasel out of the need to justify your means by saying that there is no justice to killing people. Cute attempt to cop out, but it won't work in a thread that is all about "the ends justify the means."

"Justified" and "just" are two very different things. The means are not just; that is to say, they are not in accord with the principles of justice, because they kill innocent people. They are indeed justified, because they are necessary to achieve the end.

You also try to claim that you would sacrifice yourself to save the many, only that competely negates your own scenario, because once you are dead, who is going to realize your end of saving the many by killing the few?

Clearly, in this case, it would not save the many. It follows that I would have a moral obligation to do no such thing. But were it the case that it would in fact present a good enough example, or were the scenario different and more suited to self-sacrifice, I would be morally obligated to undertake the action.

And finally, you also try to claim that you're not arguing that the ends justify the means

Um, yes, I am arguing exactly that. Where did I dispute it?

No, I didn't. Nowhere.

<snip everything else because the first and last statements make it impossible to have a conversation with you.>

Um, yes, I am arguing exactly that. Where did I dispute it?
Normally, I respect you a great deal, Soheran, but now you are just lying. Go back and read the freaking thread to see what arguments you have been making, and stop trying to force me to read it to you (figuratively).

I have made my arguments, and I have shown you the flaws in yours. Nothing you have said since adds anything new. I'm bored with you. It's raining. Listening to the rain is more interesting than running in circles with you. I'm going to bed. Hopefully, you'll come up with something new by tomorrow and will quit this BS of trying to deny your own arguments.

Normally, I respect you a great deal, Soheran,

I generally respect you a lot too; honestly, this has taken me rather by surprise. I don't think I've been very unreasonable.

but now you are just lying.

I don't think I am. (Is it possible to lie unknowingly?) Perhaps I am just overly forgetful? Or maybe I have enough trouble with reading comprehension that I do not understand my own posts.

I did say in one of my recent posts:

Since I'm not claiming that the ends justified the means in that case

But, of course, the key words there are "in that case." I don't think there's any other reference to that idea in my posts, except perhaps my discussion of the justice of the means, which, like I said, is a separate question from their justification.

As for the other point, all I said originally was that I (and everybody else, implicitly anyway) had a moral obligation to kill the few to spare the many, whatever our personal wishes, or the personal wishes of those few. You objected that I should kill myself first, on the basis that I have no right to treat myself better than you. I accepted this point; if it is a choice between saving you (or any other non-morally deplorable person) and saving myself, there is no good reason to choose saving myself over saving you. But I do not see its connection with my original point, and I certainly do not see the contradiction in my stated positions.

This is honestly mystifying me - the point regarding my denial of "ends justify means" more than the other, because I can see how I could have been misunderstood with regard to the other, a misunderstanding I have attempted to (and apparently failed to) correct.

Since you don't want to go back through every post, I did the work for you. Here is every section of my posts in this thread that has mentioned "means":

Since I'm not claiming that the ends justified the means in that case, the point is irrelevant.

Nor are most advocates of "the ends justify the means," except perhaps when they are politicians.

Your objections have nothing to do with the point. The fact that the people may kill me afterwards has nothing to do with the justice of the act. If anything, it serves merely as a rebuttal to your notion that the only possible motive for "ends justify the means" is selfishness.

Difficulty has never been a convincing rebuttal to moral obligation. Impossibility might be, but then the logic of "the ends justify the means" is irrelevant; the (attempted) means do not achieve the ends, because they fail.

I do not argue that all factors should not be taken into account when considering what means to use to achieve the ends.

Depends on the circumstances. If there are other viable means that are proportionate to the ends, I will undertake them.

And it is exactly what you are proposing. Either everyone dies from the scarcity of food, or some people are killed to permit enough food for the rest. You can always just object to the proposed situation, but as I pointed out before, to do so is to miss the point; no one is claiming that the horrendous means should be used if they are not necessary.

But, of course, the key words there are "in that case." I don't think there's any other reference to that idea in my posts, except perhaps my discussion of the justice of the means, which, like I said, is a separate question from their justification.

Do you think the people whose lives will be sacrificed by sparing the poor will think that the ends justify the means in that case? Because it is the same decision. You are not really any less callous; if anything, you are more so. You are choosing between less people dying and more people dying; you can't choose more people dying and claim that your hands are somehow clean.

"Playing God" is not avoidable. Either way, you are sentencing people to death. You must a decision one way or another - less people will die, or more people will die. The only way I can see it argued that more people dying is preferable is through some kind of appeal to moral purity - I will avoid being the direct cause of their deaths if I refrain from doing this, or something to that effect. But this is nothing but selfishness. Indeed, this is an even starker case of the ends justifying the means than anything I have proposed. It is saying that the end of my moral purity is worth the means of the sacrifice of other people's lives. That is not a moral course of action.

Yes, when someone makes unjustified utilitarian arguments - when someone uses unjust means for unjust ends, or disproportionately unjust means for just ends - and attempts to excuse herself through appeal to Utilitarianism, they are no better than those who do not excuse themselves. But this in and of itself is not an argument against Utilitarianism.

If you grant that in a conceivable circumstance the ends justify even means so extreme, then you must also grant that the ends can justify the means.

If the ends don't justify the means, what does justify them?

I see wrong ends a whole lot more than wrong means, frankly.

Here is one that referenced "means" without actually using the term:

There is no "justice" to whom I choose to kill. This is obvious; all bloodshed is a wrong, and any such decision will have a degree of arbitrariness. But the point is that the injustice of killing them is outweighed by the injustice of everyone dying. This is what you have persistently ignored.

I need not show that my course of action is just in some absolute sense. I need merely show that it is more just than the alternatives.

I don't think any of those have meanings that equate to what you have assigned to me, but perhaps I am wrong; if I am, it would be appreciated if you, or anyone else, could point it out, so I can clarify what I actually meant.

It is also possible that I said something that did not mention "means" somewhere along the line that gave the same impression; if someone could point that out to me, it would be appreciated as well.

I generally respect you a lot too; honestly, this has taken me rather by surprise. I don't think I've been very unreasonable.
I've noticed that several threads have taken this kind of a turn lately. Normally excellent debaters making lousy arguments in some places; normally open and intelligent people missing each other's points as if they're writing in different languages in others; people fighting with each other who normally don't, on topics they normally don't fight about. Maybe there's something in the stars -- an alignment that is not favorable to communication perhaps. We should back away from this, I think.

I don't think I am. (Is it possible to lie unknowingly?) Perhaps I am just overly forgetful? Or maybe I have enough trouble with reading comprehension that I do not understand my own posts.
You do not have poor reading comprehension. The fault is in your argument. Perhaps you do not realize that you have been pushing an "ends justify the means" situation sandwiched between disclaimers that you don't agree with "the ends justify the means." I think you have been trying to show that a non-"ends justify means" approach can be applicable to such situations, but in your own argument, you have shown that it cannot, because the more you develop your hypothetical, the more you fall into using ends to justify means while trying to sidestep all evidence that those means cannot be justified by those ends. I have been trying to show you this, but it's as if we are talking past each other.

I did say in one of my recent posts:



But, of course, the key words there are "in that case." I don't think there's any other reference to that idea in my posts, except perhaps my discussion of the justice of the means, which, like I said, is a separate question from their justification.

As for the other point, all I said originally was that I (and everybody else, implicitly anyway) had a moral obligation to kill the few to spare the many, whatever our personal wishes, or the personal wishes of those few. You objected that I should kill myself first, on the basis that I have no right to treat myself better than you. I accepted this point; if it is a choice between saving you (or any other non-morally deplorable person) and saving myself, there is no good reason to choose saving myself over saving you. But I do not see its connection with my original point, and I certainly do not see the contradiction in my stated positions.
This is just one point within our argument. It does not capture the scope of the whole argument, which, for me, has been about the disconnect between your disclaimers that you are not arguing for "ends justify means" and your hypothetical, which can only work if you accept that the "ends justify the means."

Actually, your summary of the one point, above, also shows what I mean about missing each other's points. You sum up the content of the argument correctly, but the point I was trying to make by it is left completely out. My point had to do with the side issue of utilitarianism. I was trying to show that, if you try to carry out your means in a way that is not self-serving, i.e. by being the first to be sacrificed, then you cannot carry out your means at all, because it will depend on others doing it for you, and why should they? So your "moral obligation" (which I also dispute, but that's a different issue) to save the many by killing the few is also defeated because I do not think the many can be saved by killing just the one. So, since if you don't do it then no one will, there is no way for this scenario to work except by you acting to preserve your own life at the expense of others (your "few"), i.e. in a self-serving manner which can be justified only by invoking "the end justifies the means."

This is honestly mystifying me - the point regarding my denial of "ends justify means" more than the other, because I can see how I could have been misunderstood with regard to the other, a misunderstanding I have attempted to (and apparently failed to) correct.

Since you don't want to go back through every post, I did the work for you. Here is every section of my posts in this thread that has mentioned "means":


<snipped quotes>


Here is one that referenced "means" without actually using the term:



I don't think any of those have meanings that equate to what you have assigned to me, but perhaps I am wrong; if I am, it would be appreciated if you, or anyone else, could point it out, so I can clarify what I actually meant.

It is also possible that I said something that did not mention "means" somewhere along the line that gave the same impression; if someone could point that out to me, it would be appreciated as well.
Well here's our problem, right here. It seems that, to you, these are evidence that you are not advocating the ends justify the means, but to my mind, they do advocate just that. Add to this your hypothetical scenario, which cannot play out in any way -- utilitarian or otherwise -- that is not dependent on the end justifying the means, as I explained in my post immediately preceding this one. Yet you say you don't advocate "the ends justify the means."

:confused:

We should back away from this, I think.

Perhaps so. Let me just make a clarification of what I am actually arguing, because I think I may have failed to make it clear in my earlier posts.

I don't think I've missed your point about my example - not mentally, anyway, though I may have in the actual written argument. I understand what you're getting at; there's no question that, viewed practically, there are some egregious acts (torture, genocide, mass murder) that are almost certainly never going to be justified by the ends, and someone who is willing to actually say "we should actually do this horrendous thing because it serves such and such an end" is probably morally depraved, and should be ignored. The number of times such logic has been abused far outweighs the number of times it has done good.

My point is really more one of moral principle. In some conceivable world somewhere, the situation could theoretically be such that certain egregious acts would be necessary to and capable of achieving certain ends, and in those circumstances the ends would justify the means. Does that mean we should mentally leave open the option of committing such crimes in our world, or is that path too dangerous? I don't know; I generally tend toward the latter, because like you I don't really trust anyone to make that kind of decision. But that doesn't change my view that another course of action would be justifiable in some conceivable situation.

Well here's our problem, right here. It seems that, to you, these are evidence that you are not advocating the ends justify the means, but to my mind, they do advocate just that.

Yes, they do. I've been arguing that the ends justify the means this entire time; that was indeed the point of my example, as you point out.

What I am looking for is my "disclaimers" that I am not.

Yes, they do. I've been arguing that the ends justify the means this entire time; that was indeed the point of my example, as you point out.

What I am looking for is my "disclaimers" that I am not.
If you have been arguing for "the ends justify the means," why would I care about any of those disclaimers?

Enough. We've made our arguments and have gone as far as we can. Let others make something of them if they want to and can. I could post some responses to your assumption of a "moral obligation" but I don't feel like following up on that right now. If this thread isn't dead by Monday, and if both of us still care, maybe I'll post something about it then. Hopefully, the stars will have sorted themselves out by then.

(Maybe I'll do it sooner. I'm trying to discipline myself to take at least a weekend off from NS and the news, and think about other things, so I can come back fresh.)

This argument is as amoral, even sociopathic, as one has to be to cite "the ends justify the means." Nuking a whole city to kill just one man is NOT justified because the damage done by it is so far out of proportion to what is needed to accomplish the end.
Only if the damage done matters. If your desired ends include the death of the one man and nothing else (you are truly indifferent to everything else in the universe), then absolutely the nuking of an entire city is justified.

But your desired ends are not so constrained. Your desired ends included the continued existence of the vast majority of people in the city, so whether the nuking of the city is justified is irrelevant, as it fails to achieve your ends.

Any means that does achieve your ends is therefore justified in all cases. It produces all the results you want and none of the results you don't. There's literally no downside to your means if they achieve all of your ends.
Consider the nature of justification: Who is it for? Who do you have to justify your actions to? Yourself? Please. Justifying one's own actions to oneself is moral masturbation -- an empty exercise. Be honest about it, nobody needs to justify their own choices because our choices reflect our desires, and in that case, "because I want to" is all the reason needed.

So who is asking for justification for our actions? Obviously, other people. Other people -- those are the ones who don't give a rat's ass about what YOU think or want, and you are going to have a hard goddamned time justifying such actions to the rest of humanity, who are in a position, btw, to punish you for doing things they don't think are justified.

So, don't tell me how you think you would be justified in nuking London to kill bin Laden. Tell me why I should think you were justified in doing it. Let's see how many classic, failed justifications, defenses, and excuses you can come up with. (By "classic failed etc" I mean ones that have often been used by criminals who got convicted anyway.)
If other people are going to object to my means even when they produce no negative outcomes, those people are insane and need to be removed from positions of authority.

Plus, I don't think any two people have a common moral frame of reference from within which even to have the conversation. You can't justify moral positions to another.