Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

TSR Big Debate discussion: Do the ends justify the means?

Welcome to TSR's Big Debate

This is the companion discussion thread for the debate:

Do the ends justify the means?

Please use this thread to discuss the debate, how you think the participants are doing, and so on.

To the debate participants:
Please post your debate entries (during your time slot) into this thread, tagging the members of the support team. We will then copy your entry into the locked debate thread.

This debate will begin at 11am UK time.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Black Rose

Great that this is finally happening!

Reply 2

Imperion

Spoiler

@miser @Jarred @shadowdweller @minimarshmallow @Kittiara :h:

Reply 3

a noble chance

I had some technical issues in submitting this post so please forgive its slight tardiness (especially as I had to get up uber early over here!)
--------
BEGIN

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 4

Millie-3

@miser @Jarred @shadowdweller @minimarshmallow @Kittiara

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 8

Ilovelovelegends

Of course, the ends certainly justify the means. I would like to take the philosophical piece of this debate away for now. It's vital to understand our nature before taking into consideration what great philosphers may have said or not. Let's begin with Darwin's theory. Survival of the fittest, the thoery stating that only the best of the best competitors survive and reproduce ( as that is the prime purpose of all creatures- to carry on their linage). Whatever their conduct if the consequence of their conduct results in an positive outcome then it's justified. They hunt, they kill and they survive. So why would this be seen as such an controversy when it concerns us?

We claim animals have no consciences. Whereas, we have evolved and developed to think that selfishness towards others is never justified. Even so, when did this high morals start, and how does it give us the right to judge others' actions? Everyone has had the brute, pleasure of an negative intervening thought. If we were to take Deontology in the context of Darwin's theory and apply it to reality, then we are almost sacrificing ourselves. In an idealistic world then we should all be vegetarian, stop animals killing each other, do as others wish of us, and if taken to the extreme maybe we shouldn't even be alive? Maybe our society itself, is toxic to mother Earth: deforestation, animal extinctions. It's not something that used to be "bad" because in the past resources were abundant ( our way of justifying our actions- we, all, are guilty of this) ; we did what we needed to survive. That was justified. My implications is that there is no perfect world. No one shares the same experience, thoughts or judgements. One person's action shouldn't be concluding most other scenarios where any means have to be applied to commit the lesser evil. Admitting that committing an bad deed is unescapable concludes that ends do justify the means, they have to , otherwise we can't survive if we don't apply such an idea in reality; we are all living in conviction of justified but bad deeds and this raises issues of double standards.

We are selfish creatures and we always have been. We commit harming act in a bystander's eyes- but justified in ours. Buddha, for example, left his family. If he hadn't abandoned his family then he would never achieve what he has today; a religious figure, philisophers, and a teacher. However, did most of us even think that his act of leaving his family was an minor act of wrong doing? The situation isn't "murder" or "war" or "mass killings". Despite an major act or minor act, a harmful action is an harmful action. Make-up, plastic surgery, branded clothes, luxury are all examples of minor act of wrong doing but justified in today's society. Where do we draw the line in our double-standard views and how do we pass judgement on others when we are guilty of the same doing? Nobody would give up their luxuries. So why do the opposition agree with one harmful act, but not see the larger, domino effect of what not choosing that harmful act would consequent in? Situation Ethics raises hypocrisy and double standards , which I believe the opposition have used to argue against the statement*. Once again, ending in the conclusion that a perfect world can't exist with only good.An parent's and child's relationship is another complicated concept of why the ends do justify the means. As stated before by the opposition, that the certainity of an bad action done to achieve a good result doesn't always wound up ending in Path A. However, this is the same for a "good action" because it depends on our judgement of matters.

An parent may want their child to become a doctor but the child doesn't want to pursue that career. What then? Should we let the parent carry on (with what they percieve is the morally right choice for their child) or do we let the child decide their own future? The child could do the morally right deed, which would be to follow their parent's wishes, but then again that would mean the parent would be comitting a morally wrong action by reinforncing their ideas into their children. This follows up from what my teammates has said previously about the trolley example ; that Deontology, unknowingly, is in favour for the motion. A different example would be to not aid a country under invasion because of having to go to war. This would mean that in Deontology, the action of letting millions of innocents die under invasion is the right choice as it is done to avoid additional war ( the wrong in this case). So the WWII, the intervention to stop Hitler wouldn't be justified in such a world. Therefore, avoiding of war is justifying the action to not save the innocent's lives because war is the incorrect means.

The law passes judgement on people who do wrong. The oppositions mentions the act of arresting the terrorist. Firstly, I would like to mention when in such a situation, we will think of ourselves first and not the terrorist. Sure, we can get the terrorist arrested but our nerves always get the best of us in such situation. Secondly, the act of arresting the terrorist is mentioned to be the right act. However, that's in eyes of law, who even believes in capital punishments. Then again, in the terrorist's eyes, the act of the arrest isn't justified ( he/she will rot away in prison). However, the opposition states that this is the correct act, and the evil of arresting in the prisoner's eyes equates to the act of shooting the terrorist to save lives. Therefore, the judgement of law is another example of why the means is justified. The fundamental idea of law, which most of us agree with is based solely on the idea that the ends justify the means; giving punishments to those wrong-doers to prevent more wrong happenings is justified (lesser of two evils).

In conclusion, there will be never be just "good" . For that reason, every individual's action is justified in their own eye : a ying to the yang must exist. I conclude with this that the idea of Deontology only exist in an idealistic mind, and that it would be such a concept that works in theory but not in practise. A theory that if used in practise would only raise complications in most matter than fix it. *Explained on the next paragraph.

Reply 9

CatusStarbright

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)

Spoiler

miser Jarred shadowdweller minimarshmallow Kittiara

For some reason I was/am having issues tagging, see above post for my argument

Reply 12

troubadour.

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 13

miser

Well done everyone! The entries will now be judged and I'll get back to you with the results in the next few days. Good luck!

Reply 14

troubadour.

I made quite a few typos. :s-smilie:

Reply 15

Imperion

I'm so paranoid!! :afraid:

Reply 16

miser

Okay, the winners have been announced!

Check them out here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=60767009&postcount=13

Thanks to everyone who took part, and congratulations to the winners. :biggrin: