Do the ends justify the means?

[bobgote]

This question always comes to my mind, especially in relation to the war on iraq.

Would you break the law, or compromise your morals or principles, if in the end it resulted in your goal?

I had always thought that the answer was obvious for me, that the end would never justify such a thing, but apparently that is not a commonly held view in my experience. So have your say!

 

[General Porkins]

The problem with this question is that the answer is different for each individual. Each person has their own moral standards and their own extents to which they will go to accomplish their goals. Certainly those who would be philanthropists and humanitarians would say that taxing the rich to provide welfare services to the poor was a justifiable action because it helps people overcome their poverty. Would they steal in order to accomplish this in a Robin Hood-esque style? Certainly some might, and to them the ends would justify the means. So really it depends on the nature of the 'end.' There are things that could be classified as 'moral ends' or those that would apparently serve to better the status of the human race, and for those things the ends would almost certainly justify the means. I think what I am trying to say is best summed up in a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon (I already posted about my admiration for Bill Watterson in the Avatar thread)... Calvin is saying how its a "dog eat dog world" and "the ends justify the means" when Hobbes pushes him into a mud puddle saying "you were in my way. now you are not. the ends justify the means." Calvin replies "i didn't mean for everyone you dolt, just me." There are cases when the ends do justify the means, and there are cases when they don't.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Yes, they do, if they are the right ends.

 

[General Porkins]

exactly

 

[Roundman]

Laws: yes, without hesitation
Morals: yes
Personal Principles/Philosophy: I don't see how I could further my goals by breaking their underlying principles, but I would if I absolutely had to.

 

[Mrogreturns]

The problem with this question is that "ends" have such short life-spans.

 

[Perfection]

Always, however one must look carefully at the ends to make sure that they are all okay!

 

[WickedSmurf]

It depends on the situation. There is no absolute answer to this.

 

[General Porkins]

After having some time to think about this, I have come up with another opinion. In my allusion to Calvin and Hobbes, I left off one other thing that Calvin says: "might makes right and the winners write the history books." As much as you may not like that statement, it is entirely true in our world today. From the perspective of a realist, that's how the world works and the only way to take care of yourself is to play by the rules of the game (which consequently means not playing by the rules). Ideally, the ends do not always justify the means. In the real world however, the law of the jungle presides, and those who choose to play nice always fall behind.

 

[luiz]

Depends of the means and depends of the end. There is no absolute answer.

For instance, ones goal is to end all crime in a certain community. How he achieves it? By killing the whole community.
It was a noble end, but the means he used to achieved it was unacceptable.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by bobgote
Would you break the law, or compromise your morals or principles, if in the end it resulted in your goal?

Nope. Never. Nada. No way.

Without principles, one is a beast.

 

[Double Barrel]

"Perhaps, I guess it depends on the situation."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrible as those events were, come to mind as one example where the ends justify the means.

We're all beasts at the end of the day. Principles have nothing to do with it, for even the wild beasts are governed by the principle laws of their nature.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Pretty much what Luiz said, but when it comes to a justice system, the ends should NEVER justify the means.

 

[Superevie]

Depends on what's going on. If the sacrifice outweighs the gain, than it's not the right thing to do. If I have to give my kidney to my mom to save her life, I'd do it. I'd do anything to protect my family and the people I love. I have undying loyalty and you have to act like a pretty big fool for me to cast you aside. If I had to hurt people I loved to get something for myself, I wouldn't do it. To me, it's not worth it. It goes to the classic rheorical question that what if your brother is sick and the medicine to save him was too expensive to buy. Would you steal it to save your brother? I don't have a brother, but if it were someone I'd love, I'd rather be in jail and have them be alive, than be free and have them be dead. Call me mushy, but that's what I believe in.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by Double Barrel
"Perhaps, I guess it depends on the situation."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrible as those events were, come to mind as one example where the ends justify the means.

We're all beasts at the end of the day. Principles have nothing to do with it, for even the wild beasts are governed by the principle laws of their nature.

Yet man is the very creature that can act against it's own nature. Also, do you believe there could be such things as principles/morals for an entity which does not have free will?

 

[General Porkins]

@aphex: can man really act against his own nature? i would say mans only true goal is his own survival, and there are very few who would act against his own life to save others, and these are the truly great people.
@superevie: you would give your kidney, but would you give your life? when it comes down to it, and you had to choose between you or someone else, could you choose the other person? i would say that it would be pretty damn tough to do so, and that only the greatest of people can make that choice...i like to think i could sacrifice myself, but that is an easy thing to say. the desire to survive at all costs is the hardest to overcome.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by General Porkins
@aphex: can man really act against his own nature? i would say mans only true goal is his own survival, and there are very few who would act against his own life to save others, and these are the truly great people.

That's the great thing about it. Man can't act against it's own will entirely, and it's not entirely ruled by it. Call it a "margin for freedom".

 

[FearlessLeader2]

"For there is no greater love than this: that a person lay their life down for another."

Principals first, everything else after. Every time I have compromised a principle, the consequences have come back to haunt me or bite me on the butt. You'd think I'd have leanred that lesson by now.

Reminds me of another quote, by Albert Einstein:

"There are only two infinite things: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the first."

 

[General Porkins]

that is a quality quote, and baweepgrannaweepninnybong to you to (that is the universal greeting for those not in the know).

 

[funxus]

Generally not, but an extreme exception would be:
A terrorist is about to push the button that launches a few nukes towards (let's say) China, and I'm standing next to him with a gun in my hand. How many wouldn't shoot the terrorist even if it's against the laws and most people's morals?