• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Under what circumstances do the ends justify the means?

robtex

Veteran Member
Under what circumstances do the ends justify the means? If they answer is never, why is it never and if it is something other than never when and why is it justified?
 

kevmicsmi

Well-Known Member
robtex said:
Under what circumstances do the ends justify the means? If they answer is never, why is it never and if it is something other than never when and why is it justified?
I dont think this question can be so general, things must be taken on a case by case basis. Certain means may be justified by certain outcomes, but other, more questionable means may not be justified, even if the outcome is the same above. Conversely, Certain means may only be justified if the result is much better than the alternative, where as these same means may not be acceptable if there is minimal positive end result. Ok, now Im confused :confused:
 

robtex

Veteran Member
kevmicsmi said:
I dont think this question can be so general, things must be taken on a case by case basis. Certain means may be justified by certain outcomes, but other, more questionable means may not be justified. Ok, now Im confused :confused:

Kev, work the solution backwards. Move through some case-by-case senerios and find when it is applicable and when it is not. Than look for a common theme on why and when you found it accepatable and build a philosophy around it.

In your head you likey have parameters on when this is acceptale (if ever) and when it is not. By making 10 hypothical senerios and working through, making sure each is different you can probably find the why that is your head but that you have not acknowledged.

What you are saying when you say,

kevmicsmi said:
Certain means may be justified by certain outcomes, but other, more questionable means may not be justified

is that the answer may be circumstancial, or contextual. Tell us under what circumstances and contexts it is reasonable and why. Fun stuff right? ;)
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
My primary motivation is my family. Remove that from the senario, and I will seek to protect as many people as possible, with a preference towards innocents.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
robtex said:
Under what circumstances do the ends justify the means? If they answer is never, why is it never and if it is something other than never when and why is it justified?

I am inclined to say never. edit... And I will add that we should passionately fight against this kind of thinking with every fiber of our being. When we lose this ethical principle we stop being human and become mere animals, living without justice, reason, and liberty.

I am assuming that we are talking about ethics involving human relationships. It is unethical to use a person as a means only, but if we are talking about inanimate objects, we can say that the ends justify the means because that's what objects are for (our use) and not people.

Means as they are related to people must always be done according to justice, and no end can justify a society that rejects justice.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
angellous_evangellous said:
I am inclined to say never.
I am too but I need a day or two to think about it.

angellous_evangellous said:
I am assuming that we are talking about ethics involving human relationships.
Yes that is what I meant.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I don't recommend the wiki article on this one. I feel that it misrepresents the ethical principle of utilitarianism, which is exceptionally useful.
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
If Nazis come knocking at my door, I will certainly lie about the identities and whereabouts of all the Jews, LGBT, etc. that I know. It is certainly worth lying, in that senario, to save lives. Therefore, I reject the statement that the ends never justifies the means.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
evearael said:
If Nazis come knocking at my door, I will certainly lie about the identities and whereabouts of all the Jews, LGBT, etc. that I know. It is certainly worth lying, in that senario, to save lives. Therefore, I reject the statement that the ends never justifies the means.

You can justify that action by other ethical principles.

The "ends justify the means" allows the person to reject all ethical principles to commit any action for their desired means.

It is completely ethically bankrupt, immoral, and the brings out the worst in humanity.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
evearael said:
If Nazis come knocking at my door, I will certainly lie about the identities and whereabouts of all the Jews, LGBT, etc. that I know. It is certainly worth lying, in that senario, to save lives. Therefore, I reject the statement that the ends never justifies the means.

I would like to note that there are two means in your hypothical senerio.

1) Protecting the Jewish person
2) Providing information to the nazi

What you have found is that the two means are in conflict with one another so you prioritized them. It suggests to me that there may be a hierarchy in constructing the paradigm of ends/means senerios, particulary when they are mutual exclusive. Good post.
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
I lean toward saying never as well. Gives me the heebee geebees to leave that door wide open.

However, I would leave a loop hole open for justification if the action (ends) turns out to be for the overall good (means) of all. If good prevails.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
robtex said:
I would like to note that there are two means in your hypothical senerio.

1) Protecting the Jewish person
2) Providing information to the nazi

What you have found is that the two means are in conflict with one another so you prioritized them. It suggests to me that there may be a hierarchy in constructing the paradigm of ends/means senerios, particulary when they are mutual exclusive. Good post.

In doing so, it is no longer a "means justify the ends" ethic, but an application of actual ethical principles which are mutually exlusive of such madness.
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
Granted, but in that web of actual ethical principles, it can be deduced that the ends sometimes justifies the means, but in that alone is incapable of building a system of ethics with the absolutes removed.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
evearael said:
Granted, but in that web of actual ethical principles, it can be deduced that the ends sometimes justifies the means, but in that alone is incapable of building a system of ethics with the absolutes removed.

Never!

One can only make that conclusion if they reject all of the evidence that they considered in order to make the choice! - If indeed, they used ethical principles to weigh the consequences of their choice.
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
Let me clarify. Depending on the heirarchy of ethical priorities, one can say that the ends sometimes justifies the means as a descriptor of the interplay of priorities... not as premise of an ethical system.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
evearael said:
Let me clarify. Depending on the heirarchy of ethical priorities, one can say that the ends sometimes justifies the means as a descriptor of the interplay of priorities... not as premise of an ethical system.

I don't think I have ever seen this in a heirarchy of ethical principles, because the philsophers who I have read are smart enough to know that descriptor is poison to any rational argument for an ethical choice.

It's impossible to justify.

Can you think of any specific examples of how this descriptor can be used?

I have only seen it used as a cop-out to justify tossing ethics out the window to justify blatant unethical or questionable actions. In many ways, it is a refusal to even consider ethical questions, and it is a tool for the destruction of justice.
 

evearael

Well-Known Member
That descriptor exists in most heirarchical system, whether it is poison or not. I agree it should not be used as a premise.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
robtex said:
Under what circumstances do the ends justify the means? If they answer is never, why is it never and if it is something other than never when and why is it justified?
Actually, if you think about it the answer is ALWAYS, **for the person employing the means**. The rest of us can argue about the point because we disagree with their judgement call, but if the original individual didn't think that the end justified the means, they would not have employed those means in the first place.

Additional point: The individual may, after seeing the results of said means, come to rethink their original decision, of course.
 
Top