Does the means justify the ends? Watch

Adejinmi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
:curious:
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
NEVER

The most evil principle because when demonstrated it can be used to justify the suspension of morality to commit the most heinous acts, terrorism, genocide, eugenics, all of these are based on this principle or some modification of it.
0
reply
Sesshomaru24U
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Depends on the person really. If you have a moral code of principles you strongly believe in then it doesn't. But if you don't, then yes it does.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Do the means justify the ends? No. Even if you kill someone 'humanely', you're still violating their preference to live. Means and motives are somewhat irrelevant - consequences are largely what matter.

This is why the reverse of the question, 'do the ends justify the means?' is true for me. If I had to murder one person to save one million, I would. The ends would be that 999,999 net people live, which justifies the means - the use of violence and the act of murder.
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
While the reverse of this statement is questionable, the means definitely do not justify the ends.
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by viddy9)
Do the means justify the ends? No. Even if you kill someone 'humanely', you're still violating their preference to live. Means and motives are somewhat irrelevant - consequences are largely what matter.

This is why the reverse of the question, 'do the ends justify the means?' is true for me. If I had to murder one person to save one million, I would. The ends would be that 999,999 net people live, which justifies the means - the use of violence and the act of murder.
I wouldn't. You can't quantify life like that.
0
reply
bahonsi
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Yes, I will have to agree with Bentham. But I guess it subjective I terms of what moral obligations are involved as well as how ethic the means are. But in majority of cases I will utilise utilitarianism.
1
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by DErasmus)
I wouldn't. You can't quantify life like that.
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?
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(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?
Not intentionally, I don't believe in the categorical imperative although I think duty is important. Really I think it's a question of the value of human life, to quantify human life like that I think it negates what it means to be human, the question of how many people does not come into it for me because whether or not we talk about 1 or 50000 people each and everyone of them will suffer individually, to say for example that killing 50 people would cause more suffering than 1 I think misses the point that 1 person has to suffer at the expense of 50 people who would have all felt what that 1 person would have felt.

I might not have clarified that well...

Suffering is personal to the individual, so whether it is 1 or 100 they all suffer individually. It is unfair for me to decide to make someone suffer to stop the suffering of others.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by DErasmus)
Not intentionally, I don't believe in the categorical imperative although I think duty is important. Really I think it's a question of the value of human life, to quantify human life like that I think it negates what it means to be human, the question of how many people does not come into it for me because whether or not we talk about 1 or 50000 people each and everyone of them will suffer individually, to say for example that killing 50 people would cause more suffering than 1 I think misses the point that 1 person has to suffer at the expense of 50 people who would have all felt what that 1 person would have felt.

I might not have clarified that well...

Suffering is personal to the individual, so whether it is 1 or 100 they all suffer individually. It is unfair for me to decide to make someone suffer to stop the suffering of others.
Oh yes, I've come across this before. I can't really argue against it - in the end morality is based on personal whim: I'm more concerned about consistency in morality after a system has been chosen.

I suppose, for me, my whim is based on the same whim that makes many people view World War 2 as, say, worse than the Crimean War - more people died. However, it is also true that everybody experiences suffering individually.
0
reply
Quma
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by viddy9)
Do the means justify the ends? No. Even if you kill someone 'humanely', you're still violating their preference to live. Means and motives are somewhat irrelevant - consequences are largely what matter.

This is why the reverse of the question, 'do the ends justify the means?' is true for me. If I had to murder one person to save one million, I would. The ends would be that 999,999 net people live, which justifies the means - the use of violence and the act of murder.
You worte : ''consequences are largely what matter.''
Why?? what is the logic when bad impact is more important than a good intent or a good reason??
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Quma)
You worte : ''consequences are largely what matter.''
Why?? what is the logic when bad impact is more important than a good intent or a good reason??
People can have all the good intentions they want, but it wouldn't make a difference in the end. If someone has a terminal illness, and they are in pain and want to die, they should be allowed to, in my opinion, and if someone stops them from doing so, however good their intentions are, they've still caused the unnecessary suffering of someone.

This is just my opinion, others may think that motives are more important, but it's the consequences that we deal with and have to live with at the end of the day. In any case, plenty of people have probably thought that their actions were justified simply because their motives were good - Hitler believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, so to him, he was perfectly justified in what he did - he probably believed that his motives were pure, and used them to justify the ends.
0
reply
Quma
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by viddy9)
People can have all the good intentions they want, but it wouldn't make a difference in the end. If someone has a terminal illness, and they are in pain and want to die, they should be allowed to, in my opinion, and if someone stops them from doing so, however good their intentions are, they've still caused the unnecessary suffering of someone.

This is just my opinion, others may think that motives are more important, but it's the consequences that we deal with and have to live with at the end of the day. In any case, plenty of people have probably thought that their actions were justified simply because their motives were good - Hitler believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, so to him, he was perfectly justified in what he did - he probably believed that his motives were pure, and used them to justify the ends.
What do you mean by it wouldn't make a difference in the end?
0
reply
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Adejinmi)
:curious:
Did you mean to ask if the end justifies the means?
0
reply
Chillaxer
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Never. And utilitarianism, in that context, makes a nice home for psychopaths.
0
reply
Quma
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Chillaxer)
Never. And utilitarianism, in that context, makes a nice home for psychopaths.
Why never?
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Quma)
Why never?
(Original post by Chillaxer)
Never. And utilitarianism, in that context, makes a nice home for psychopaths.

^.^
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Quma)
What do you mean by it wouldn't make a difference in the end?
People's good intentions won't change the outcome of an act.
0
reply
Quma
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by viddy9)
People's good intentions won't change the outcome of an act.
Can you give an example?
0
reply
Quma
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
Is there a connection between the meaning and the end??
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! (441)
37.89%
No - but I will (88)
7.56%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.87%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (555)
47.68%

Watched Threads

View All