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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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 confusedrobtex 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?
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
kevmicsmi said:Certain means may be justified by certain outcomes, but other, more questionable means may not be justified
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 too but I need a day or two to think about it.angellous_evangellous said:I am inclined to say never.
Yes that is what I meant.angellous_evangellous said:I am assuming that we are talking about ethics involving human relationships.
robtex said:I am too but I need a day or two to think about it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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?