Philosophy Question

The Sniper

Each BOTL who replies can apply the question to whichever situation / circumstance they care to as long as they stay focused on the root of the questionand answer thoughtfully. I look forward to reading some well thought out replies.

The question is - Do the ends justify the means, provided that the reason is just?

Ready.... GO!

wwestern

Nope a righteous cause, will only be polluted by less righteous actions.

Rhamlin

wwestern:

Nope a righteous cause, will only be polluted by less righteous actions.

#1 you never saw the Duke sway from his principals in any of his movies. Even if the end result wasn't going to be a good one.

The_Kid

NO, example, One could become indescribably more evil in his cause to destroy an evil thus by his actions exceeding the evil he is attempting to destroy.

Marker

As a general rule I would say no.

I can think of a few situations where the end would justify the means and I would not be ashamed at all it was done that way.

Amos_Umwhat

I'm pretty much in line with the above answers, the idea may be tempting, but to go forward can only be rationalization. It is the tippy-top of the slippery slope.

Amos_Umwhat

On second thoughts, I can think of several scenarios where this would be unavoidable, as well as the classic scenario of "If your loved one could be saved by a drug, which sells for $23,000 but only costs the pharmacist 17cents, and Obamacare isn't going to kick in until after your loved one will die, and the only way to get the drug is to steal it, are you still wrong?" You are, of course, but justifiably.

It still brings about a condition of flexible ethics, are much of a stretch and you're no longer walking the razors edge at the top of the slippery slope.

The_Kid

Amos Umwhat:

On second thoughts, I can think of several scenarios where this would be unavoidable, as well as the classic scenario of "If your loved one could be saved by a drug, which sells for $23,000 but only costs the pharmacist 17cents, and Obamacare isn't going to kick in until after your loved one will die, and the only way to get the drug is to steal it, are you still wrong?" You are, of course, but justifiably.

It still brings about a condition of flexible ethics, are much of a stretch and you're no longer walking the razors edge at the top of the slippery slope.

Yes IMO this means is justifieable.. I wont say that there are not several situations where ones acts although wrong is a lesser wrongdoing than what is trying to be prevented or achieved. Wars are fought and people are killed to keep peoples inherent rights . We find ourselves then weighing our actions on a scale in hopes that we havent tipped them in an ill favor ,, It seems there are lesser degrees of wrongdoing and all is shaded in grey . Dilemna would you kill an innocent person to prevent a loved one who is also innocent from being killed?Or does one have faith that all wrongs will be righted by our creator

Rhamlin

Agreed while I can sit back and talk about principals and all that in the end you gotta do what you gotta do. Guess that makes me a flip-flopper.

[Deleted User]

The problem here is that this is gray area question that really involves a definitive yes/no answer but in nature is going to evoke a gray area answer. So it depends on what the ends are and who they hurt. Personally, I believe no. However, there are certain situations (life/death) where I think this question does not have relevance and the ends most certainly justify the means.

laker1963

To me it is an easy question to answer. NO

Human nature is very interesting, and the impulse to act to avoid seeing an injustice or death of a person close to us such as a family member or child is a natural one, where you may indeed act before considering the question. However it does not change the question. The answer is still NO.

[Deleted User]

laker1963:

To me it is an easy question to answer. NO

Human nature is very interesting, and the impulse to act to avoid seeing an injustice or death of a person close to us such as a family member or child is a natural one, where you may indeed act before considering the question. However it does not change the question. The answer is still NO.

That's a great answer. I would love to debate this with you over a few beers. I think it would fun.

laker1963

james40:

laker1963:

To me it is an easy question to answer. NO

Human nature is very interesting, and the impulse to act to avoid seeing an injustice or death of a person close to us such as a family member or child is a natural one, where you may indeed act before considering the question. However it does not change the question. The answer is still NO.

That's a great answer. I would love to debate this with you over a few beers. I think it would fun.

That would be funny. After a few beers I'm likely to say anything! LMAO

BigT06

Only if the means are equally as just as the reason. Just because some things are worth it, does not make them just.

stephen_hannibal

"Sometimes the law is helpless to act, even when it identifies the guilty.
It follows, therefore, that sometimes it is necessary to act ouside the law, to shame its inadequacy, to pursue a natural justice.
I'm not talking about vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive.
It's a tawdry, emotional response no better than the act that provokes it. I'm talking about...PUNISHMENT."

-Frank Castle aka The Punisher.

camgfs

If I think of this qestion in the 'natural order' of the planet, I'd have to say yes. The only species on the planet that would even debate this are the 'humans'. No other species would even worry about it. Animals kill to justify their hunger, breed to justify their continuance on the planet...in other words, it's instinct that drives then, not vengence or their belief in right or wrong.

If I think of this question as a member of the 'human' species, I'd have to say no. As humans, we let emotions cloud our judgement and we make decisions that we later regret.

The Sniper

Great answers all gentlemen, thanks for all the great responses.

To continue the discussion, I would wager that all of us at some point in our lives have heard one of the following...

"The law says that..."

"The rules state..."

"Our policy is..."

... when said law / rule / policy was clearly in direct conflict with what we know to be right or just in our hearts. How should one deal with such a situation? How have you personally?

Ready... GO!

[Deleted User]

Not until you answer your own question... hehe.

The_Kid

james40:

Not until you answer your own question... hehe.

+1

jasonusa1

To answer your first question... I think it's hard for anybody to really give an honest answer until they are in a specific situation that would warrant this type of decision. For example... If somebody every hurt my little girl, I would do things to them that not even I could presently imagine to be possible. As previously said, humans are the only species that would even raise this question. By societies standards, of course the answer is no. But it's that same society that let a young mother go free this summer after murdering her daughter (I know, another topic all together), so I have a hard time agreeing with with what society inherently decides as right and wrong when it's not their livelihood at stake. Let's go Red Sox.

The Sniper

The Kid:

james40:

Not until you answer your own question... hehe.

+1

Fair enough. LOL As an example, when I was in the Air Force the three core values they drilled into us were 1) Integrity first, 2) Service before self and 3) Excellence in all we do. These core values were supposed to be the guiding principles in the decisions we made, and I agree with them to this day.

There were times when regulations (Air Force Instructions nowadays, kinder and gentler and all that LOL) and orders were in direct conflict with what common sense and experience had shown me needed to be done to accomplish a particular mission and keep those under my command safe. In situations such as these, I let my core values prevail in my decision making. At the end of the day, I had to be able to look myself and my people in the eye and know that I did the right thing, consequences for breaking a rule or an order be damned.

Did that make me a bad NCO? Some would answer yes, and by the rulebook I couldnt argue the point. But at the end of the day, regardless of whatever repercussions I risked or suffered I knew in my heart I had done the right thing. That was enough for me.