An interesting maxim. Thoughts and opinions from all would be welcomed.

[BigJim]

A quote by Jesse Ogden
The moment the means become an unethical and unjust faculty, the ends have lost all justification. Just because one has the power to achieve certain ends does not give one the right to do as one pleases if the rights of others are being violated.

Okay ladies and gentlemen, there are many things in our modern world that this phrase could refer to. The methods used in the recent War on Terrorism and capital punishment to name but a couple. Those particular issues are not what I want to debate. (At least not here, in this particular thread.) What I would like to discuss is the thought behind the maxim. Do the means justify the ends? Does it matter how immoral the method if the goal is perceived as just? Can someone justify aiming for a good and honourable goal if they use heinous tactics to achieve it? Is the nobility of the goal negated if they try?

 

[Haltickling]

I, for one, agree with the thesis. Good examples are terrorists: They believe that everything they do is justified by their cause, even killing.

Now, if we don't find LEGAL and ETHICAL ways to deal with the terrorists, we are no better than them. If we (as a society) use torture to get information on terrorists, we're no better than them. If we try to install a democracy by tyrannic means, we're no better than the other tyrants. If we kill those who oppose us in our fight for a better world, we're no better than any other killer.

Unethical means to achieve any goal (however noble and good) discredit the goal itself. Ethics can only be upheld with ethical means.

 

[venray]

Difficult as it is at times, the end result does not always justify the means. I have to agree with what Hal said.

The problem is that people get so frustrated trying to do the right thing and failing, so they resort to that which works and try to justify it later.

Ray

 

[BigJim]

Hmmm. It's a real test of character, no?

 

[Admiral Trouser]

It's a pointless statement, in my opinion: How do you ascertain whether or not the means justify there ends? Is there a chart, a diagram, a rule of thumb, an equation, hell, a swing-o-meter that tells us, out and out, when the action is out of line with the effect it's trying to create? No, there isn't. The question is based solidly in that soggy, grey realm called Morality, and morality is quite possibly the only part of the human nature where it is possible for there to be no right answer on any given question, but still have everyone you ask about it tell you that they are 110% certain that there answer is totaly correct, and everyone else's...totaly wrong.

Basicaly put, what one person would consider unjust the other does not, and because each person's judgement on the situation is a value-based one, where the values come from themself and nowhere else, it is pointless for either to argue there case to the other: Regardless of the facts, they aren't going to change there minds on it all, because it's all about what they feel is right, or were told is right by someone else. There is no universal law that we can use to figure out if what we're doing is right or wrong, we only have gut instinct to vaguely point us in one direction or the other.

My...two dollars worth, lol.

AT 🙂

 

[BigJim]

Quite insightful psychology Admiral, but what about your answer to the question? Can you justify something by taking the easy way out and achieving it in a bloody, murderous, thieving or otherwise scarborous way? It doesn't have to be such an inexact grey area, because I'm not asking what people consider moral and immoral. I'm just asking do they think they can throw what morals they do have to the four winds in the pursuit of something they believe is right?

Example: 99% of Americans love the Constitution. It enshrines free speech, the right to a fair trial, legal representation and immunity from cruel and unusual punishment, amongst other things. They've also demanded the rights that their prisoners of war be treated well by their captors. There was outrage during the first Gulf War wen those captured airmen were paraded on TV. However both the Constitution and the Geneva Convention have been flouted with impunity by the Federal and British Governments on numerous occasions. (The British Government is not bound by the Constitution of course, but it's a general set of good guidelines for most civillisations.) The question in this case would be, can it be justified to behave in exactly the same evil, barbarous, illegal and inhumane way we condemn our enemies for doing, providing it's in the pursuit of something we consider "good". (However that may be defined.)

 

[Admiral Trouser]

Should they? Shouldn't they? Who knows? The answer to that question, as I tried to explain above, is not a universal one, but instead a personal one: They'd have to beleive that flouting those regulations was wrong in the first place, and *also* beleive that those regulations in question were right and just in the first place, etc etc...

To give you an answer from *my* personal perspective on your question: Why...it's a grey area of course! Sometimes the ends justify the means, and in others they don't. Since there are no universals govering right and wrong, I'm not going to make one up for the sake of brevity and beleive in it because life gets easier that way.

AT

 

[Myriads]

A big part of your question comes down to intent.

Example.

A suicide councilor lies to a person to prevent them from taking a step that would produce immediate death.

The means are immoral. A lie.

Does it negate the result? You judge.

No moral equation will always balance black and white like a mathematical one. There will always be cases that stray from side to side and proudly wear their cloaks of gray.

Myriads

 

[Cosmo_ac]

it's funny...

Over the last two days, i in particuler have been battling with something like this. I'm not going to give any details, but the point is i felt something wrong was done for something another considered right.
So, how do i feel about this? Do the ends justify the means? I look at like this. Basically, what type of world do i want to live in? If i partake or condone torture, then i'm saying that a world with torture, so long as i like the results, is ok. And hey, it's all good and well until you or a friend are being the ones tortrued isn't it? SO, i look at things like this. Basically like my Sig says. I try and live my life, and hold the morals i think are right, even if part of me is angry or hating somebody. I believe in Mercy even for those who have commited the most horible of crimes, not because i think that will make me a great person, but because i wish more to live in a world of compasion and mercy, more then a world of hatred and vengence. Perhaps i'm shooting high, but unless we start, how will it ever go from fantasy to reality? There is the potential within humans to make this world a paradise, but we have yet to truely tap that potential. However we must all work towards it, and one day, we might actually make it.

 

[ShadowTklr]

The answer to your question from my standpoint is yes AND no.
Politically, the ends do not historically justify the means. When you consider the amount of blood that has been spilled in this country alone in order to allegedly afford all Americans the same rights, the same dignity, and the same worth, you will find that the means were only justified by those who stood to bear the greatest benefit from the ends.

On a personal level, I do believe the ends can justify the means in dire situations. For example, say my child has been kidnapped and buried alive with only hours left to live. I have captured one of the kidnappers who knows the exact location of my child, only he is unwilling to divulge that exact location. If the end result is that my child would be rescued with that information, you can bet that I would dispose of every single ethical and moral limitation that I normally place upon myself as a human being in favor of the most barbaric means necessary in order to get it. There would literally be no barriers, human or spiritual, that I would not breach in order to acquire that information.

This comes down to what Admiral was saying. There is no universal answer to the question, but I do believe that there are individual situations that call for very difficult decisions.

Here's a couple of dilemmas for you:

A terrorist is about to explode a bomb on a crowded subway. You can stop him, but you must shoot him to do it. The only problem is that he is holding a child hostage, and you must shoot through the child to kill the terrorist. If you kill him, you will have saved hundreds of people. Do you do it? Before you answer, here's another wrinkle. The child you must shoot through, is yours.

Your wife is bitten by a poisonous snake and will die soon without an antidote. The local drugstore has it, but its incredibly expensive and you don't have the money. You rob the store with a gun to get the antidote to save her life, but the druggist won't give it up. Do you kill him to get the cure for her?

 

[BikiniGirl]

I see where Shadow is going with this, but there's something else. The reality of those situations. Like the drug-store one. I'm sure there would be other authorities that could be notified that his wife was poisioned.

But, I get the point. I think that what Myriads said is true. There are so many levels of grey that you can't answer that question in an easy, concise manner. Dilemmas like this make for good philosophical debate and "brain-excersize" but fail to fall within parameters that can be completely answered.

Holy shit...she's got brains, too! 😀

 

[BigJim]

A big part of your question comes down to intent.

Example.

A suicide councilor lies to a person to prevent them from taking a step that would produce immediate death.

The means are immoral. A lie.

Does it negate the result? You judge.

No moral equation will always balance black and white like a mathematical one. There will always be cases that stray from side to side and proudly wear their cloaks of gray.

Myriads

I think telling a "white" lie could mostly be excused, because the magnitude of difference between fibbing and someone pancaking their ass on the sidewalk, is quite a gulf. You didn't mean that as an exact example I know Myr, so I know I'm being pernicketty.

Good point, showing the Admiral's in another light.

 

[BigJim]

When you consider the amount of blood that has been spilled in this country alone in order to allegedly afford all Americans the same rights, the same dignity, and the same worth, you will find that the means were only justified by those who stood to bear the greatest benefit from the ends.

Ain't that the truth!

On a personal level, I do believe the ends can justify the means in dire situations. For example, say my child has been kidnapped and buried alive with only hours left to live. I have captured one of the kidnappers who knows the exact location of my child, only he is unwilling to divulge that exact location. If the end result is that my child would be rescued with that information, you can bet that I would dispose of every single ethical and moral limitation that I normally place upon myself as a human being in favor of the most barbaric means necessary in order to get it. There would literally be no barriers, human or spiritual, that I would not breach in order to acquire that information.

I don't there's many who would disagree with that (including me). Bear in mind though that the situations I'd most envisage would be ones involving more than just one person. The main topics people'd think of are actions taken by nations or agencies within nations. Is it right to carry out a war that killed a hundred thousand civillians and starved a million children to death in the next 5 years, to settle an argument with someone who we lead to believe could behave how he wanted without reprisal from us anyway? Is it ethical to pander to petty emotions and execute criminals when the alternative is more effective in every way from cost to deterrance?

A terrorist is about to explode a bomb on a crowded subway. You can stop him, but you must shoot him to do it. The only problem is that he is holding a child hostage, and you must shoot through the child to kill the terrorist. If you kill him, you will have saved hundreds of people. Do you do it? Before you answer, here's another wrinkle. The child you must shoot through, is yours.

On an intellectual level this one is easy to answer; yes I'd shoot. If I didn't, everyone on that train including me, the members of the public and my child, are going to die. The alternative is to have my child and the terrorist die. Either way, my child is going to die; there is no way to prevent that from happening in the scenario you described.

Easy to say how you'd deal with it on an intellectual and dispassionate level though. Could I deal with it on an emotional one? God alone knows and I hope to heaven that I never have to find out! I can't imagine a more horrible situation to be in.

Your wife is bitten by a poisonous snake and will die soon without an antidote. The local drugstore has it, but its incredibly expensive and you don't have the money. You rob the store with a gun to get the antidote to save her life, but the druggist won't give it up. Do you kill him to get the cure for her?

Again it's a personal, 1-on-1 situation; not one with many innocent lives involved. However in this case, no I would not kill the chemist. (We call a "Drug Store a "chemist's" here.) I would go for the alternative which is to brain him with the butt of the gun and then steal the cure. Why would I commit a wrongful act? Because I can pay the man's medical bill, send him some flowers and grapes in hospital and apologise later. I would not shoot him because there is no need to be so extreme. On a moral level it'd be exchanging one innocent life for another. Pretty pointless. Again though it'd be horrible to deal with it on an emotional level. Fortunately for anyone in that position, it's not one with only a single life-saving solution.

 

[ShadowTklr]

Again it's a personal, 1-on-1 situation; not one with many innocent lives involved. However in this case, no I would not kill the chemist. (We call a "Drug Store a "chemist's" here.) I would go for the alternative which is to brain him with the butt of the gun and then steal the cure. Why would I commit a wrongful act? Because I can pay the man's medical bill, send him some flowers and grapes in hospital and apologise later. I would not shoot him because there is no need to be so extreme. On a moral level it'd be exchanging one innocent life for another. Pretty pointless. Again though it'd be horrible to deal with it on an emotional level. Fortunately for anyone in that position, it's not one with only a single life-saving solution.

I think you're absolutely right. And you raise another important issue - reason. For example, in my second scenario, you were able to reason an alternative to the choices I gave. This is the essence of intelligence that I think nations lack as a whole. It seems that what is good for the few is all that matters, and any means necessary to acquire what they want is grounds for all the atrocities that we see going on around the world. Thanks for a cool thread, Jim. 😎

 

[Dave2112]

I see where Shadow is going with this, but there's something else. The reality of those situations. Like the drug-store one. I'm sure there would be other authorities that could be notified that his wife was poisioned.

But, I get the point. I think that what Myriads said is true. There are so many levels of grey that you can't answer that question in an easy, concise manner. Dilemmas like this make for good philosophical debate and "brain-excersize" but fail to fall within parameters that can be completely answered.

Holy shit...she's got brains, too! 😀

A cute girl with brains....AACCCKKKK!!! Whatever shall we men do?!?!? This is an assault on my sense of superiority!!!

Ok, enough tokin' for one day. Just kidding, BTW. 😉

Seriously, I agree with you BG and Myr. You could "answer" this question with a host of scenarios designed to either prove or disprove the original arguement. You have to look at the question without pre-determined answers. And therfore, it really cannot be completely answered. There are times when any ends justify the means...in the cases of greater life and death, mass destruction or the continuation of life, freedom and/or civilization. In cases of what I'd call "one-for-one" tradeoffs like the "chemist" example, there are usually other solutions.

And just for the record, the example of the terrorist on a train holding my child, it's not really an accurate example, although I know it was given only as an example. In reality, and anyone who's been in the military or escpecially domestic law-enforcement can attest, there is bound to be a shot you can take. A grown man cannot completely cover himself with the body of a small child. There's usually a shot that can be taken. Even as a last-ditch effort (and here's what I'd probably do if all other options were exhausted), you can shoot the hostage in the leg or other non-fatal area, causing the terrorist to lose a second or two of concentration wondering if he'd been shot. The kid's gonna drop regardless, and you can place the second shot you were lining up.

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

Okay ladies and gentlemen, there are many things in our modern world that this phrase could refer to. The methods used in the recent War on Terrorism and capital punishment to name but a couple. Those particular issues are not what I want to debate. (At least not here, in this particular thread.) What I would like to discuss is the thought behind the maxim. Do the means justify the ends? Does it matter how immoral the method if the goal is perceived as just? Can someone justify aiming for a good and honourable goal if they use heinous tactics to achieve it? Is the nobility of the goal negated if they try?

Absolutely! The ends ALWAYS justify the means, whether it's flying planes full of innocent passengers into building full of innocent people, or bombing trains full of innocent passengers, or slaughtering journalists on camera and sending the footage in to the news media, or setting bombs off daily in packed areas where civilians converge, or slaughtering innocent athletes at Olympic Games(Munich `72), or onandonandon. The ends ALWAYS justify the means when it comes to killing the infidels in the name of Most Holy Allah. AAAIIIEEEE!

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: An interesting maxim. Thoughts and opinions from all would be welcomed.

Absolutely! The ends ALWAYS justify the means, whether it's flying planes full of innocent passengers into building full of innocent people, or bombing trains full of innocent passengers, or slaughtering journalists on camera and sending the footage in to the news media, or setting bombs off daily in packed areas where civilians converge, or slaughtering innocent athletes at Olympic Games(Munich `72), or onandonandon. The ends ALWAYS justify the means when it comes to killing the infidels in the name of Most Holy Allah. AAAIIIEEEE!

It's a popular misconception that we as "the good guys" use questionable tactics far less frequently than the mad muslims who make up "the bad guys". The numbers killed without need or tactical merit by the side painted as "the good guys", whether they're christian crusader knights or modern armies, air forces and navies, are far far higher.

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

Yay for us!