| User | Post |
Dracoon
Posts: 2368/3727 |
No...
No end can justifie a mean. There is always another way, or better yet, the truth. Talking about drugs, you only tell the absolute truth, if you don't people will be less likely to trust you in the future.
Now as for putting a bomb in an airplane terminal, why did no one think of just having the pilots armed? They come breaking in with a knife and get shot. No real damage will be done to the plane, yes I know this for a fact, and everything would be a lot better. To hijack the plane you have to first take the pilots, so you have several means to stop it from happening. Just make it so the doors are locked from the inside, there is a camera that watches, and I'm sure if I was inventive enough I could just keep on going.
Really, there is always another way, and as another way exists the ends can never justifie the means. If there was only one way, and that one way only, then maybe... just maybe... |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2665/5458 |
Everything has a justification, as justification is completely subjective. Mind you, to me, I can find justification for attacks on US military interests. On the other hand some neocon (just stating random political viewpoint) may find it completely justified to kill the 4 year old son of a terrorist leader to get across a "point". |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 1624/3770 |
I'm ruthless enough to believe in Silvershield's idea, as many ends DO justify their means. However, I also agree with his logic that an end and a means are far too narrow-minded of a choice to be made. More often than not, there is a third, and indeed a fourth and fifth choice, which lead to means that really don't require justification. |
Ailure
Posts: 7410/11162 |
I'm taking this a step furter but... there is a chanche that someone set off that bomb. Such as an terrorist. Killing alot of lives for no reason at all.
And stuff like this is just... I wouldn't it justifty. |
Apple
Posts: 575/594 |
Bombing the airport...
500 or people die instead of 3000
Less property damage
Would of been better? Yeah, it seems like it but the negative respones that the goverment would of received has the possible to end up alot worse than a few thousand lives lost. They could blame it on terrorists but it wouldn't really stop them from trying it again somewhere else before the goverment can try and inplace all the sercuity systems.
You could issue a grounding of all planes and stop the hijackings before they started, prevented the explosion and loss of innocent lives. Would of been alot better looking as well.
If the planes did manage to take off. Shoot them down with jet fighters.
But to answer the question. The end very rarely justify the means. |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 1325/2189 |
I dunno, I don't really like to argue questions like this. B/c if the means is diametrically opposed to the end, how can it be justifiable? You can still do things without a proper justification. If you had to kill 1000 innocent people to stop a nuclear disaster that would kill many times more people, you would still do it, right? But I'm sure you wouldn't feel great about it. And you'd have some splaining to do. And you'd definitely question if there was an easier way... |
Silvershield
Posts: 322/345 |
The question is quite easy to oversimplify, so I'd approach it with caution. In a general sense, it is fair enough to say that the end should not justify the means; however, in practice, such encompassing logic cannot be used. Certainly there is some end that must be achieved, regardless of the means required.
In your example, BookReader, planting a bomb is definitely justifiable if it takes fewer lives than the other option would. However, that assumes that no third path is available. Hopefully, there is another means through which the end can be accomplished, making the complete preservation of life an ideal outcome. |
Steak
Posts: 350/507 |
The means justify the means. How one goes about a problem is ultimately more important than the goal in mind. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2616/5458 |
Example A:
Marijuana causes people to become intoxicated.
Solution: Prohibit substance
Consequence: Black market is created
Problem: Shut down black market
Solution: "War on Drugs"
Consequence: Thousands of lost lives
Therefore: End is not justified by the means
Example B:
US Handhold on South/Latin America weakening
Solution: Implace dictator in Chile, arm nation
Consequence: Pinochet is put into power
Problem: Pinochet is brutal dictator
Solution: Move away from Chile
Consequence: New dictators are implaced (Noriega, etc.) and South/Latin America further deteriorates
Therefore: The loss of life outweighs all benefits. End is not justified by means
Those are just two good examples. |
BookReader
Posts: 197/232 |
Ethics: Does the End Justify the Means?
Right, so, generally I |
