Does The End Justify The Means?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It either is or it isn't. This is a black and white question.

No it isn't. Depends on what the ends are and what the means are. If the means are murdering someone compared to simply theft, then the answer may be vastly different.

[SlowwHand]

That's your opinion. As I stated, my opinion is you either have ethics and honor or you don't.
It doesn't make either one of us right, I only ask the question.
Your illustration doesn't really even make sense in this conversation. You would need to expand on it.

[DaShi]

So Sloww has finally lost his marbles.

[SlowwHand]

At least I had marbles to lose.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it's about your saying that the ethics question you've asked is black and white. And yet, you say in this thread that it is absolutely not the case that the ends can ever justify the means, while in another thread you were willing to say that it is okay to cause the deaths of several million Iraqi civilians (leaving aside for the moment your revocation of the civilian status of an entire nation's population) in order to prevent the deaths of a much smaller number of Americans. In other words, you don't really believe that it's a black and white question - you're usually opposed to having the ends justify the means, but in the case of killing Iraqi civilians you believe that the ends justify the means.

Bingo!

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's your opinion. As I stated, my opinion is you either have ethics and honor or you don't.
It doesn't make either one of us right, I only ask the question.
Your illustration doesn't really even make sense in this conversation. You would need to expand on it.

It's very easy. For example, say that someone you knew who was innocent was jailed by a repressive regime (China, if you want). And in order to free him before they executed him, all you had to do was steal a key. In that case the ends justified the means. However if in order to free him, you had to kill a bunch of people, then the ends are not justified by the means.

Therefore... I have no option in this poll.

[SlowwHand]

No, your vote should be that the end doesn't justify the means. It's a black and white hypothesis. Any end, by any means. It's really not that hard to comprehend.
Think of it as "whatever it takes", if that makes it easier to understand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are mentally deficient.

I just gave you an example where one means would have me say "the ends justify the means" and another where the means would have me say "the ends DO NOT justify the means". Seriously, WTF Slow?

[SlowwHand]

No, you're an arrogant ass. I'm asking a question and giving you the parameters, and you argue with me.
It's my question. You're going to sit there and tell me that you'll define the question? Bull****.

[Kuciwalker]

Virtue ethics never gets any love...

Virtue ethics are kind of silly.

[SlowwHand]

No, not really. Without virtue ethics, what would lead to rules or consequences?

[Jon Miller]

It's very easy. For example, say that someone you knew who was innocent was jailed by a repressive regime (China, if you want). And in order to free him before they executed him, all you had to do was steal a key. In that case the ends justified the means. However if in order to free him, you had to kill a bunch of people, then the ends are not justified by the means.

Therefore... I have no option in this poll.

There is a problem with your definition of Ends. In the case of the stolen key, it should also include things like the guard who had the key committing suicide (possibly), the guards at the jail being all killed, or nothing additionally happening.

The Ends is not just that a single guy is freed, they include all the results of a persons actions.

JM

[giblets]

No, your vote should be that the end doesn't justify the means. It's a black and white hypothesis. Any end, by any means. It's really not that hard to comprehend.
Think of it as "whatever it takes", if that makes it easier to understand.

That's a stupid definition because no one would consider that ethical. Now there's nothing to do except call you a retarded hypocrite.

[Elok]

Virtue ethics are kind of silly.

There is no way they are any sillier than deontological ethics.

[giblets]

For those of you who have BK on your ignore lists, I'm not going to quote him, but he has just said that philosophy is more important than mathematics, while history is more important than any of the hard sciences.

I'm glad everyone ignored his troll.