Does the End justify the Means or vice-versa?

[Ecofarm]

I think this is a fun question.

It might be trite and rather "what if c-a-t spells dog" ish, but the potential for discussion is tremendous.

I believe the Means justify the End. If noone else will take up this position, I will defend it later.


Which do you believe and why?

For those who hedge their position with "depends" or "gray area" (other)... it depends on what and why? Examples?

Here's an example to explore: Iran-Contra.

 

[Camikaze]

The end does not justify the means. It may in individual cases, but as a general rule, it doesn't.

I think an easy example is finding a way to stop people getting cancer. This can be achieved through killing everyone. Then they will not get cancer. But the end (being that no one gets cancer) does not justify the means.

Of course, it slightly different if you consider 'the ends' as being a whole state of affairs, and not just a specific objective, but even then it is safe to go with the ends not justifying the means.

 

[Ecofarm]

What about the means justifying the end?

 

[innonimatu]

What about the means justifying the end?

What does that means?

 

[Camikaze]

What about the means justifying the end?

Well, no, the means do not justify the end. Ever. The end is one singular result, independent of the means that were used to obtain it. An end is either good or it isn't, but that isn't dependent on the means through which it came. Good intentions are still good, but the result produced through them is not justifiable through sheer virtue of being the product of good intentions.

Also, an example of means supposedly justifying the end would be good. I'm struggling to think of any such situations.

 

[Ecofarm]

What does that means?

It means one gets what they deserve.

Obviously, at the extreme that doesn't work... but in general...

An end is either good or it isn't, but that isn't dependent on the means through which it came. Good intentions are still good, but the result produced through them is not justifiable through sheer virtue of being the product of good intentions.

I think I might disagree there, on both sentences.

1. The end certainly depends on the means.
2. The means are more than 'good intentions'. They are 'good actions', by definition.

Also, an example of means supposedly justifying the end would be good. I'm struggling to think of any such situations.

Doing the right thing... do the results matter?

Example: Someone studies for a test pretty well and earns a 90%.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I think you are really talking about: bomb people to death until they install democracy puppet leaders to appease US warmongering. And then screw things up so bad to make the insurgents think they are winning.

 

[Ecofarm]

What about religion?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Doesn't really matter? Unless you kill people because of it. Or hating on teh gays.

 

[Ecofarm]

I mean to consider religion within the context of the question. War was only one of many allusions.

 

[Camikaze]

I think I might disagree there, on both sentences.

1. The end certainly depends on the means.
2. The means are more than 'good intentions'. They are 'good actions', by definition.

1. Yes, but it's relative worth does not. The end is the result of the means through which it was obtained, but whether it in itself is good or not is independent of the means. For instance, whether democracy is good or not is independent of how democracy was achieved.
2. Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that whether the end is good or not is independent of the means, and therefore cannot be justified by it. Good actions will invariably lead to a good end, but it isn't the fact that they were good actions that determines whether or not the end is good.

Doing the right thing... do the results matter?

Example: Someone studies for a test pretty well and earns a 90%.

Well, sure, there are some individual cases where good means result in a deserved end. But as a general rule, no, the means do not justify the end. In the given example even, the hard work and studying does not justify the 90% result, as such. It's just an example of the means leading to the end, which is what, by definition, they do.


The poll lacks a 'neither' option. I don't like 'other'.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Define what the ends and the means are for religion.

Eating wafers isn't really that offensive to me.

 

[innonimatu]

It means one gets what they deserve.

So both are used as excuses. And I bet that everyone who use one also use the other, depending on convenience. Generically, I see no difference then.

 

[The Imp]

Isn't this simply deontological ethics vs consequentialist ethics?

 

[Bill3000]

Isn't this simply deontological ethics vs consequentialist ethics?

The dichotomy there is a bit more complicated than that.

 

[The Imp]

The dichotomy there is a bit more complicated than that.

I honestly don't see how.

 

[Shadylookin]

I don't really think you can take one without the other.

Ends doesn't justify the means:

World peace is a good end, but if you had to kill 4 billion people to get there that's pretty bad and not justifiable

Means doesn't justify the ends:
Government wants to improve moral, spends all it's money on booze, huge deficit and epidemic of drunk driving deaths ensues. Buying beer for everyone is nice but it doesn't make up for the fact that now we're in debt and a bunch of people died.

And motive doesn't justify the means or the ends. The path to hell being paved with good intentions and all

 

[JohnRM]

The answer is not that simple.

The means that you might utilize to obtain an objective will always vary depending on what exactly that objective might be. There is a limited number of things that I am willing to do to protect my property. I am most often not willing to take a life for it. However, I will put down any individual that might threaten the lives of my family members.

 

[Narz]

I believe the Means justify the End. If noone else will take up this position, I will defend it later.

I completely disagree. You're saying good intentions excuse harm actually done. The end is what matters. Of course, ideally, you should be able to reach positive ends with the minimal collateral damage but better to have a quality end than a bunch of good intentions leading to disaster.

 

[Dachs]

Hahaha silly Ecofarm, apparently false dichotomies aren't just for kids