Does the means justify the ends? Watch

Chillaxer
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by DErasmus)
I wouldn't. You can't quantify life like that.
Yes, and it's a slippery slope of a position, which will allow more and more concessions until it becomes evil. Like what happens when you keep giving away liberty in the name of 'security'.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
(Original post by viddy9)
You wouldn't kill even one person to save 1 million, 1 billion, the entire planet Earth? An interesting view - you're probably in the minority there, although I am in the minority when I apply such utilitarian calculations to a situation in which one person would have to be killed to save five people. Your view is probably the most consistent non-utilitarian one, as opposed to believing that it is justifiable to kill one person to save many at an arbitrary point when the 'many' really becomes 'too many', but not below this point.

Are you a follower of Kant?
I would kill one person to save the entire planet earth, but anything less and I wouldn't bother. The human population needs controlling. A few million less people on this earth wouldn't be such a bad thing...
0
reply
Kaiju
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
The means justify the end for the individual perpetrating the act; not for any of the people who may be unwittingly involved.

A con artist would argue that they do, the unfortunate victim would not.
They are both correct.

I don't think it's possible to come up with an objective yay/nay answer for this sort of question.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by The Dictator)
... but anything less and I wouldn't bother. The human population needs controlling. A few million less people on this earth wouldn't be such a bad thing...
That's completely immoral from my perspective, plus, if overpopulation even is a problem, there are alternative ways it can be dealt with. Firstly, the way resources are distributed on Earth is incredibly uneven: if they were distributed more equally, overpopulation would be less of a problem. Add in some GM Crops, which can massively increase food production, continue the emancipation of women across the globe and expand family planning programs, and it's less of a problem still. If necessary, implement one-child or two-child policies, but allowing millions of people to die is, in my view, morally equivalent to genocide.
0
reply
Quma
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
I do not understand why the result is more important than the meaning.
0
reply
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
As a general rule, yes, I believe it is. But this would have to include what would happen if it failed.
0
reply
deliverous
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by Quma)
Is there a connection between the meaning and the end??
Yes, any means don't justify any ends.
0
reply
Quma
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by deliverous)
Yes, any means don't justify any ends.
What is the logic?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (100)
40.16%
No - but I will (12)
4.82%
No - I don't want to (16)
6.43%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (121)
48.59%

Watched Threads

View All