NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question. Self explaining. No simple answer.
Let's use this as a hypothetical example: There is a psychotic despot, akin to Saddam Hussein. Let's call him X. He has personaly ordered the mureder of hundreds, if not thousands, and will continue to kill. You have the ability to kill him. However, you must, in doing so, kill an innocent man. Let's call him Bob. Bob is the father of three, works five days a week, drives a station wagon, and goes to mass every sunday. Is it ok to kill Bob so as to kill or disempower X? If so, what if it were ten men like Bob? 100? 1000? How many lives is it ok to take to rid the world of a single evil? Or, if it is not alright, then what if Bob is mentally retarded, or dieing of cancer? Does that change anything?

We are obligated to maximize the good, and minimize the bad. Even if it involves causing harm in the process.

No, and believing that principle outright is a dangerous road to take.

EDIT: Although I do believe situations should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Constantly sticking to your guns isn't much better

We are obligated to maximize the good, and minimize the bad. Even if it involves causing harm in the process.

Is that a yes or a no to the OP's question?

If the net benefit to the maximum number of people outweighs the loss to those harmed then yes.

We are obligated to maximize the good, and minimize the bad. Even if it involves causing harm in the process.

So how many innocent lives does it take, "the good" and "the bad" become disproportionate?

it depends on the ends and the means.

many people will cheat on a test to get into law school. few will kill a kindergarten class in order to promote their political agenda

If the net benefit to the maximum number of people outweighs the loss to those harmed then yes.

Who decides if it does outweigh or not?

Simple question. Self explaining. No simple answer.
Let's use this as a hypothetical example: There is a psychotic despot, akin to Saddam Hussein. Let's call him X. He has personaly ordered the mureder of hundreds, if not thousands, and will continue to kill. You have the ability to kill him. However, you must, in doing so, kill an innocent man. Let's call him Bob. Bob is the father of three, works five days a week, drives a station wagon, and goes to mass every sunday. Is it ok to kill Bob so as to kill or disempower X? If so, what if it were ten men like Bob? 100? 1000? How many lives is it ok to take to rid the world of a single evil? Or, if it is not alright, then what if Bob is mentally retarded, or dieing of cancer? Does that change anything?

Morally, no.
In reality, more people were killed by people who wanted to kill Saddam Hussein than by Saddam Hussein himself. Go figure.

Is that a yes or a no to the OP's question?

It's a "yes," but I would never it put in those terms - "the ends justify the means."

I'm not even sure what the phrase really means. Does it mean that the ends always justify the means? That they merely can? Can we even coherently divide "means" and "ends"?

I just call myself a consequentialist and let people make of that what they will.

Who decides if it does outweigh or not?
The person or persons in the position to make the choice. The sides can argue their case, but only the one (or ones) who engages the 'means' can decide ultimately.

If the means are justifiable it will be by the ends. Of course, some means are never justifiable, regardless of the ends.

A better question would be: If you were offered the cure to cancer/AIDS/Whatever, would you be able to pay the price, which is killing a thousand babies with a hammer?

A shocking amount of people would say no. What is a thousand babies done with a hammer, when compared with ten thousand more, a million more, that would be saved from the agony of cancer/syphilytic madness?

So how many innocent lives does it take, "the good" and "the bad" become disproportionate?

Human beings are equal, right? So their lives should be valued equally. We should save as many as possible.

Who decides if it does outweigh or not?

Once we have a standard by which to evaluate the consequences of an action, the question of whether or not the bad outweights the good, or the reverse, according to the standard becomes an objective fact.

All we can do is try our best to discover what the truth is - just as we must always do when trying to act morally. Find me a moral theory that offers an alternative.

A better question would be: If you were offered the cure to cancer/AIDS/Whatever, would you be able to pay the price, which is killing a thousand babies with a hammer?

A shocking amount of people would say no. What is a thousand babies done with a hammer, when compared with ten thousand more, a billion more, that would be saved from the agony of cancer/syphilytic madness?

The problem is that the people can see the babies right in front of them, they can feel the heads cave in as they strike, the baby is immediate and easy to visualise, whereas the HIV sufferer (or whatever) is not.

we saw something like this in ethics class.
the answer differs if you choose to follow deontology or consequentialism.

deontology means that you have to follow a set of rules. for instance: "don't kill" . when two rules come in conflict you can ignore one rule if it isn't your intention. so you can kill a foetus in order to save the mother, if you intend to save the mother and not to kill the foetus.
consequentialism means that you have to analyse the consequences of you actions, and you have to maximize a value you consider good. for instance "happiness" or "life".

in this case consequentialist would say that it's ok to kill the guy if it saves more life. a deontologist would say that it is immoral to kill the man, because you would use him as a means to save the other people and you can't use people as a means by themselves (or something, i'm far from an expert :) )

so if it's moral or immoral depends on the point of view you choose to take.

I would not kill Bob unless I had substantial proof that the end result would be better. If killing Bob meant killing Dictator X as well, I'd need proof he wouldn't just be succeeded by another dictator.

At any rate, killing one guy would be better than having to kill many, many people to get Dictator X out of the picture, which is what revolution would entail.

As for the question at hand, yes, the ends usually do justify the means. That's the point of doing stuff, after all: good ends, not proper means. We all may like to think otherwise but we reap the benefits of this kind of thinking every day.

The problem is that the people can see the babies right in front of them, they can feel the heads cave in as they strike, the baby is immediate and easy to visualise, whereas the HIV sufferer (or whatever) is not.
Which is the biggest problem with most people, they only care about what they see right in front of them.

Sometimes but I generally don't like people that think so.

a deontologist would say that it is immoral to kill the man, because you would use him as a means to save the other people and you can't use people as a means by themselves

But if we do the opposite, we are using the other people as a means to save him. We are stating that their lives and their ends should be subordinated to the life of that one man. We are not considering them as ends-in-themselves, for if we were, we would respect their ends and save their lives.

"If it's morally wrong to kill anyone, then it's morally wrong to kill anyone." -George Carlin.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. The exact circumstances dictate the answer.

A better question would be: If you were offered the cure to cancer/AIDS/Whatever, would you be able to pay the price, which is killing a thousand babies with a hammer?

A shocking amount of people would say no. What is a thousand babies done with a hammer, when compared with ten thousand more, a million more, that would be saved from the agony of cancer/syphilytic madness?

I'd be more likely to do that than the original example. I fucking hate babies.

But if we do the opposite, we are using the other people as a means to save him. We are stating that their lives and their ends should be subordinated to the life of that one man. We are not considering them as ends-in-themselves, for if we were, we would respect their ends and save their lives.

no, in deontology "not taking an action" (omission) has no moral value, you are only responsible for the actions you actively take (commission), like killing the man and saving the lives; and not for the actions you don't take like not killing the man, not saving the lives.
this is in contrast to consequentialism wich puts omission and commission on the same hight.
(i only had a few lessons on ethics, so i could be wrong, and there are several forms of deontology and consequentialism.

no, in deontology "not taking an action" (omission) has no moral value,

Sure it does. Plenty of deontologists have insisted on an obligation of mutual aid - Kant, for instance. In fact, Kant went so far as to insist, just as I have argued, that to truly treat people as ends-in-themselves we must not merely negatively refrain from treating them exclusively as means, but also positively pursue their ends as if they were ours.

He also saw the obligation not to treat people exclusively as means to be an absolute restriction on our actions... but this notion ends up, like many absolute rules, conflicting with itself.

No, you cannot just run up and kill Bob, even if there is some benefit to other people in doing so. Bob did not act so as to be deserving of death, and thus should be left alone. You could try and persuade Bob to surrender his life to save all of those people, but you cannot take his life right from him. You cannot determine whether his death is "worth" the lives of others, because economic value is subjective; you may want to save those people, and Bob may want to live. To act as if the means justify the ends is not morally sound, because it is ultimately caught up in personal subjectivity and not objective goodness.

Now, if there was a different kind of situation, in which if there were two people trapped in a crashed car and to save one of them you had to kill the other with no way around it, or in the case of an entopic (sp?) pregnancy, you could do this. If nothing is done, they will both die, and you are not acting to put one of them to death but to save one of them.

For those that belive in what they are doing then yes the ends do justify the means.
For those who do not blieve in what is being done then no, the ends do not justify the means.

It is a matter of prospective.

Which is the biggest problem with most people, they only care about what they see right in front of them.

Indeed. The question is, are you, or I, an exception or just arrogant while we are far from that situation?

Simple question. Self explaining. No simple answer.
Let's use this as a hypothetical example: There is a psychotic despot, akin to Saddam Hussein. Let's call him X. He has personaly ordered the mureder of hundreds, if not thousands, and will continue to kill. You have the ability to kill him. However, you must, in doing so, kill an innocent man. Let's call him Bob. Bob is the father of three, works five days a week, drives a station wagon, and goes to mass every sunday. Is it ok to kill Bob so as to kill or disempower X? If so, what if it were ten men like Bob? 100? 1000? How many lives is it ok to take to rid the world of a single evil? Or, if it is not alright, then what if Bob is mentally retarded, or dieing of cancer? Does that change anything?

I'd have sex with Bob and convince him to arrange an intervention for Dictator X.

You cannot determine whether his death is "worth" the lives of others, because economic value is subjective; you may want to save those people, and Bob may want to live.

We are not dealing with economic value; we are dealing with moral value.

Human lives are equal. Thus, saving the many is better than sparing the few.

If the ends are being taken on by the proletariat (say it's a revolution of some kind), then yes, it is the people's act. If it is the act of some other government, well, even if it's with the best intentions such interference is not right.

Sure it does. Plenty of deontologists have insisted on an obligation of mutual aid - Kant, for instance. In fact, Kant went so far as to insist, just as I have argued, that to truly treat people as ends-in-themselves we must not merely negatively refrain from treating them exclusively as means, but also positively pursue their ends as if they were ours.

He also saw the obligation not to treat people exclusively as means to be an absolute restriction on our actions... but this notion ends up, like many absolute rules, conflicting with itself.

you obviously know a lot more than me about the (interesting) subject so you are probably correct.
just out of interest, isn't there any theory in wich it would be unethical to kill Bob? and if you were Bob, would it be immoral not to commit suicide? and what if you could prevent the death of 100 by killing 90?

just out of interest, isn't there any theory in wich it would be unethical to kill Bob?

Don't let me mislead you - Kant, and many of his followers, would probably say it would be unethical. That position, however, does not follow from his arguments. That was my only point.

Those who advocate a framework of absolute natural rights would also deem it unethical.

and if you were Bob, would it be immoral not to commit suicide?

Yes.

Those of you saying "no" - are you absolute pacifists? If not, how can you justify war under your reasoning?

Well. I would say that the only discernable answer to this question is that it is entirely dependent on what the observer individual values more; does he hold that the end has greater value than the means to achieving it?

In short, does he, in his subjective way, value the end result as 'worth it'.

Simple question. Self explaining. No simple answer.
Let's use this as a hypothetical example: There is a psychotic despot, akin to Saddam Hussein. Let's call him X. He has personaly ordered the mureder of hundreds, if not thousands, and will continue to kill. You have the ability to kill him. However, you must, in doing so, kill an innocent man. Let's call him Bob. Bob is the father of three, works five days a week, drives a station wagon, and goes to mass every sunday. Is it ok to kill Bob so as to kill or disempower X? If so, what if it were ten men like Bob? 100? 1000? How many lives is it ok to take to rid the world of a single evil? Or, if it is not alright, then what if Bob is mentally retarded, or dieing of cancer? Does that change anything?

Presumably X is going to kill many people just like Bob. That's what makes him evil. If Bob stands in the way of preventing all those other Bobs from being saved then it is a necessary sacrifice. If X is going to kill 100 Bobs and you must kill a thousand Bobs to get to him, well then it's pointless. The only thing that's making X evil is that he's killing lots of people. If you kill more than he, then what makes him the villain instead of you?

Rather like how few sources indicate that Saddam Hussein killed more than 600,000 people in his decades of power in Iraq, yet the war to remove him has killed more than that. It wasn't worth it.

Simple question. Self explaining. No simple answer.
Let's use this as a hypothetical example: There is a psychotic despot, akin to Saddam Hussein. Let's call him X. He has personaly ordered the mureder of hundreds, if not thousands, and will continue to kill. You have the ability to kill him. However, you must, in doing so, kill an innocent man. Let's call him Bob. Bob is the father of three, works five days a week, drives a station wagon, and goes to mass every sunday. Is it ok to kill Bob so as to kill or disempower X? If so, what if it were ten men like Bob? 100? 1000? How many lives is it ok to take to rid the world of a single evil? Or, if it is not alright, then what if Bob is mentally retarded, or dieing of cancer? Does that change anything?

It depends on if Bob is willing to die to end X's reign of terror or not.

We are not dealing with economic value; we are dealing with moral value.

Human lives are equal. Thus, saving the many is better than sparing the few.

Actually, we ARE dealing with economic value, because one of the points is if acting to kill Bob is worth the lives of the people. We cannot have Bob and the people both, which is indicative of scarcity. We must therefore choose one option. But we cannot determine what is economically of greater value- Bob's life or those of the people that will be killed- because economic value is in the eye of the beholder and is not objectively ascertainable. So we cannot go and impose what we believe is economically superior, because we are not necessarily correct in our judgement and Bob's desire to not die shows that this is not economically acceptable. Ergo, it is dealing with economics.

And no, human lives are not equal. Would you rather save the life of an ultra-humanitarian who brought good to every person he met and would develop a variety of cures for various incurable diseases, or save the lives of two crack-smoking murdering rapists? Most sane people would say no; thus, this proves that the axiom of human lives are equal isn't actually an axiom, since it isn't always true.

I hate to appeal to practicality, but the problem with these questions assume there are only be two options (yes, I know that's the point of them), but these situations never occur in real life. Every action has multiple consequences, most of which are impossible to foresee. For example the the existance of Mr. X could be preventing the rise of another person who will ten times the evil. Or perhaps one of Bob's as-yet unconceived children will do some great good.

Human beings are equal, right? So their lives should be valued equally. We should save as many as possible.



Once we have a standard by which to evaluate the consequences of an action, the question of whether or not the bad outweights the good, or the reverse, according to the standard becomes an objective fact.

All we can do is try our best to discover what the truth is - just as we must always do when trying to act morally. Find me a moral theory that offers an alternative.

Humans are SUPPOSED to be equal. The sad fact of reality is that they aren't. People are not given equal chances. Each man or woman has their own set of prejudices, small, insignificant, or even positive though they may be.

Alright, let me add a few things into Bob's life to clear a few of the "ifs" up. Bob is perfectly average right down to the fact that Dark Side of the Moon is his favorite rock album. So are his to children. Bob has no knowledge fo the decision his life is now a part of.
For those of you who said that he should be killed to put a stop to X, I again pose my origional question- Bob may day, but if it is ten men like him, is it still ok? How many deaths does it take untill it is no longer acceptable. Also, does the manner of his death change anything?
Those of you who said he shouldn't be killed, again I say, if he has AIDS or is retarded, does that change a thing?

I'll also point out that there is no "right" answer to this, and that the question will never be solved.

the end does not justify the means, because there is no such thing as an 'end' in human existence (collectively i mean, well, not yet anyway). things done to achieve a particular imagined end will have consequences after that 'end'.

the means justify the end because if you do everything with the minimum amount of intrusion or coersion you are less likely to screw things up for other people once you have achieved your particular objective.

X has killed thousands of people, and Bob is only one man. The loss of Bob is sad, but it was necessary, and he was expendable for the lives of thousands of others that would have died if we had not martyred Bob in order to kill X.

So yes, in this situation, the ends justify the means.

X has killed thousands of people, and Bob is only one man. The loss of Bob is sad, but it was necessary, and he was expendable for the lives of thousands of others that would have died if we had not martyred Bob in order to kill X.

So yes, in this situation, the ends justify the means.

Again i ask: What if it's ten Bobs? I sthat ok? 100? 999?

What if you could go back in time and kill hitler as a baby with AIDS, but you had to kill 5 other people and your sister at the same time. And if you didnt kill them 9 people, a baby and a chihuahua would die.

Every case is diferent. But, generaly, I do believe the ends justify the means.

Mainly because I dont think all humans are equal. That is magical thinking bullshit. Humans are diferent, and some have more value than others.

What if it isnt Bob? What if you have to kill 10 bodyguards to get to Mister X? Would that be diferent? Of course that would be. But, in the end, it wouldnt mater much, since Mr. X is much more important than Bob or 10 bodyguards.

That means that if the Pope was guarding Mr. X, and you had to kill him to stop him from blowing a bomb that would kill millions, to the hell with the Pope. What you need is to stop him, and whatever is in the middle needs to be dealt with.

Yet, at the same time, you do have to think of each case as unique. As the saying goes, "hell is full of good intentions". Which means that you have to know if its worth going through all the trouble to do what you need. But, it depends on the value of the end, not the hardships of the means.

It only justifies if you decide it justifies it.

Depends, for many of the reasons that people have said (if killing dictator X would bring someone worse, then it wouldn't be, etc.)

Alright, let me add a few things into Bob's life to clear a few of the "ifs" up. Bob is perfectly average right down to the fact that Dark Side of the Moon is his favorite rock album. That's reason enough to kill him. <giggle>

(yes, this is a joke)

I argue whether or not this Bob is actually innocent if you have to kill him to kill the genocidal maniac. My case for arguing this point is that ignorance is not the same as innocence.

I can only envisage Bob being vaguely innocent if he is a janitor in the building in which the dictator lives. By virtue of working for the dictator he would not be innocent as he is condoning the dictator's actions. If he does not know of the dictator's actions then why not. If it is because of willful ignorance - such as being completely apathetic towards his rulers then he not innocent. If it is because the infomation is not easily available then you would be wrong in killing him for you did not do your best to spread the infomation.

Other than that any killing, other than defense with no other option, is wrong. Killing someone because they have killed others is wrong. Killing someone because you know they are intentionally trying to kill or do great harm others is permissible.

http://www.sandycreekalpacas.com/bios/swoosh/Swoosh1.jpg

it's not ok to kill Bob every effort should be taken not to do so, but it may happen.......what is really the point i think is the callous attitude some countries have when targeting an opponent in another country, if it happened in their country they would never accept the cost of killing Bob let alone his children.....when the USA went after Noriega in Panama they flattened(bombed) an entire neighbourhood killing many innocents, had Noriega been a drug lord in LA would the US military ever considered bombing a LA suburb?...never, but these were Panamanian civilians and their lives do not have the same value as their own civilians....

yes, the ends justify the means.

It's only right if those ends follow your beliefs, it's only wrong when it doesn't.

people will rationalize either way wether it's right or wrong, but they'll do it and support it when its in favor for them.

yes, the ends justify the means.

so following your logic it would be moral to conduct medical experiments on children without their consent, because it helps to find a cure for a deadly disease?
and what about banning euthanasia/abortion? a lot of lives will be saved.

It's only right if those ends follow your beliefs, it's only wrong when it doesn't.

people will rationalize either way wether it's right or wrong, but they'll do it and support it when its in favor for them.

isn't the whole purpose of ethics to find theories wich help you to make moral choices in wich the rights of all the parties are equaly considered?

Actually, we ARE dealing with economic value, because one of the points is if acting to kill Bob is worth the lives of the people.

Worth it, morally. That is the only relevant sense of "worth."

But we cannot determine what is economically of greater value- Bob's life or those of the people that will be killed- because economic value is in the eye of the beholder and is not objectively ascertainable.

All value is in the eye of the beholder, including any variety of moral value. That is irrelevant; the fact that Bob might disagree with the moral conclusion does not make them wrong.

I might value my capability to steal your property more than I value your right to it. This too is a choice involving scarcity; it cannot be both ways. Thus, by your logic, it is a subjective question of economic value, and no answer can be imposed upon me?

And no, human lives are not equal. Would you rather save the life of an ultra-humanitarian who brought good to every person he met and would develop a variety of cures for various incurable diseases, or save the lives of two crack-smoking murdering rapists?

That is not the question at all. The better question would be: would I rather save the ultra-humanitarian or the two crack-smoking murderous rapists, knowing that the consequences in both cases would be morally equivalent but for that distinction? Otherwise, it is easy to say the humanitarian, because the humanitarian will bring aid to others - but that is valuing the lives of those the humanitarian helps, not of the humanitarian herself.

To get to the substance of your point, most likely I would save the humanitarian anyway; I accept a role for desert in justice, and I don't believe the guilty have as much moral value as the innocent. But that does not change the fact that IN GENERAL people are of approximately equal moral value, and certainly if we are not provided any information upon which we can base a legitimate distinction (and we are not in this example), we ought to treat them as if they were of equal moral value.

Humans are SUPPOSED to be equal. The sad fact of reality is that they aren't. People are not given equal chances. Each man or woman has their own set of prejudices, small, insignificant, or even positive though they may be.

I did not mean "equal" as in "actually treated equally." I meant "equal" as in of equal moral worth.

so following your logic it would be moral to conduct medical experiments on children without their consent, because it helps to find a cure for a deadly disease?
and what about banning euthanasia/abortion? a lot of lives will be saved.
if you think such things are neccessary... then yes, you can follow that logic to that conclusion. People will rationalize their decisions anyway they seem fit. others will demonize it no matter how much good will come from it. if 1,000 babies has to be experimented on and killed to find a universal cure that will save a hundred BILLION other children from illnesses and genetic disorders, some will say, it was a necessary sacrifice, while others will argue that those hundred Billion others should not have a guarenteed health and life at the expence of a thousand babies.

It's all perspective.

isn't the whole purpose of ethics to find theories wich help you to make moral choices in wich the rights of all the parties are equaly considered?and when the choice is made, not everyone will be happy, those that are not will not say "well, they did choose the best method"

and those on the winning side will make every excuse as to why it was done the way it was done... falling short of saying "The ends Justify the Means."

Personal Perspective.

I did not mean "equal" as in "actually treated equally." I meant "equal" as in of equal moral worth.

I do not think they are. If a bum off the streets were taken hostage, do you think anyone would really care? But if a government official or Bill Gates were in the same situation...
Need I finish?

I think Bob needs to kill the dictator himself and leave my ass out of it.

In any specific real situation, I would have to know what the consequences of deposing Dictator X would have on the country, region, and even the world to ascertain wether it is worth it to have Bob whacked. I'd also have to know who the most likely factions to take over from Dictator X would be.

However, if this is fantasy land and Dictator X will be replaced no doubt by a hunky-dory government, then I would kill Bob, and even up to 443 other Bobs (you said he killed hundreds, if not thousands, and will keep killing. However, the numbers in the thousands are obviously less assured than the hundreds, therefore due to rounding, 444 would be allowed to be killed, but no more than that.)

The Ends Always Justify The Means

IMPORTANT: if you define The Ends clearly enough

Example:

"I want to be rich beyond my wildest dreams." The Ends version 1

This ends is insufficent and ambigous (sp). Then if your belief system doesn't allow you to commit crimes or inflict suffering, the ends do not justify the means because you cannot deal in drugs or smuggling or extortion. So to you those means are not justified.

"I want to have assets of over 2 billion US dollars before I die, without commiting crimes or inflicting pain and suffering." The Ends version 2

This new, more specific version of The Ends gives meaning to the Means now. If you can find The Means of accomplishing that, then your ends are Justified.

Lets take simplified situation where we have 100% sure information what our choices actions will cause. Now mathematically saying:

"innocent lives saved by killing dictator X" > "innocent lives saved by leaving X to power" = "killing dictator X IS justified"

"innocent lives saved by leaving X to power" >= "innocent lives saved by killing dictator X" = "killing dictator X IS NOT justified"

Of course real life is never so simple.

so following your logic it would be moral to conduct medical experiments on children without their consent, because it helps to find a cure for a deadly disease?
and what about banning euthanasia/abortion? a lot of lives will be saved.

Yes



isn't the whole purpose of ethics to find theories wich help you to make moral choices in wich the rights of all the parties are equaly considered?

No. Equality is overrated, and a distinct implausibility. Don't consider rights; you make a decision by weighing the consequences, and let history sort out right and wrong.