Does The End Justify The Means?

[Theben]

The meanies will justify your end.

[giblets]

This is a "would you kill one person to save five" type question, right? Only an idiot would say no.

[SlowwHand]

No, and it's not just about crime. It's not at all about math.

[giblets]

Why don't you explain what it is instead of just saying a few things about what it isn't.

[Wiglaf]

It is sad to hear that Slowwhand has been busted Capone-style but this is better news than nothing

Note: This isn't legal advice and I will not represent you.

[SlowwHand]

Jesus Christ! Define it? OK, fine. Here's Wiki's definition. It goes into details that I wouldn't bother with pointing out.

This phrase means doing anything whatsoever that is required to get the result you want, regardless of the methods used. It does not matter whether these methods are legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil: the phrase refers to the deliberate use of wrong methods and law-breaking by the powerful to get their way or remove an opponent or whatever, and immediate and self-righteous denial if details are made known. A good example would be that of "Watergate", when President Richard Nixon (aka "Tricky Dicky") was eventually forced to resign after it became known that senior White House officials had approved the burglary of the Democratic Party headquarters which were in the Watergate Hotel. The end result of 'the ends justifies the means' is anarchy and lawlessness................Actually the end justifies the means refers to the morality of an action. It means that the morality of an action is based solely on the outcome of that action and not on the action itself. Example: Telling a lie that has no negative effect on anyone and saves someone grief is good. Killing someone to save others is ok. ect. A deontologist would say lying/killing is always bad. A consequentialist would say that it is ok if the outcome is positive. It can involve illegal activities and what some would consider immoral methods, but definitely is not based on that.

[giblets]

Okay, so I did understand the question. And I still think "deontologists" are retarded.

[SlowwHand]

You think ethics are retarded? You'll go far. Not.

[Kuciwalker]

It's more complicated than that. As a practical matter, human morality is deontological, and it's pretty clear that it ought to be so according to any reasonable consequentialist framework.

xpost

[giblets]

You think ethics are retarded? You'll go far. Not.

No. "Consequentialists" aren't morons.

[giblets]

It's more complicated than that. As a practical matter, human morality is deontological, and it's pretty clear that it ought to be so according to any reasonable consequentialist framework.

xpost

As long as you don't say "x is always wrong" where x is a means, then you're not stupid. "x is usually wrong, but not if you have good reasons for it" is okay.

[Kuciwalker]

As long as you don't say "x is always wrong" where x is a means, then you're not stupid.

The problem is that we probably want people to be stupid, at least with respect to some actions.

[BeBMan]

As long as you don't say "x is always wrong" where x is a means, then you're not stupid. "x is usually wrong, but not if you have good reasons for it" is okay.

What with "x is always wrong, but there may be no better alternatives than to do x?"

Don't ask me for an example.

[Kitschum]

Keep this in mind if you go in front of a jury. They think independently.

It works the other way too. He's such a nice boy and the girl's just jealous.

That's why civilized countries don't have juries.

[giblets]

As long as you don't say "x is always wrong" where x is a means, then you're not stupid.

The problem is that we probably want people to be stupid, at least with respect to some actions.

I guess some people might come up with excuses to justify whatever they want to do, instead of actually figuring out what the right thing to do is. But of course you're advocating deontological ethics as a means, aren't you?