First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Ends Justify The Means Do You Agree Or Disagree?
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15
So I was watching an episode of Medium where detective Scanlon goes vigilante and lets his brother die, and he said "the ends justify the means". Now, do you agree with this Machiavellian axiom?


Edit: This was suppose to be in GD. Silly me.
One Punch Mod
85827 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So I was watching an episode of Medium where detective Scanlon goes vigilante and lets his brother die, and he said "the ends justify the means". Now, do you agree with this Machiavellian axiom?


Edit: This was suppose to be in GD. Silly me.


Just noticed the Edit. I've moved it over to General Discussion now. Ignore my PM.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So I was watching an episode of Medium where detective Scanlon goes vigilante and lets his brother die, and he said "the ends justify the means". Now, do you agree with this Machiavellian axiom?


Edit: This was suppose to be in GD. Silly me.


I'm prragmatic to a fault, but I have to say that Kant's categorical imperative is a far superior way to go.

People are ends in and of themselves, and if the means are wrong for everyone regardless of situation, they're wrong for you too.
13650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Online
Posted 1/29/15
Depends.

I want a new pair of shoes and shoot the next person I come across and take theirs. Nope.

Plague is killing off humanity and I've got a potential cure but while testing is going on thousands upon thousands will be dying. Fuck it, just start trying it on humans immediately! Yup.
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15

serifsansserif wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So I was watching an episode of Medium where detective Scanlon goes vigilante and lets his brother die, and he said "the ends justify the means". Now, do you agree with this Machiavellian axiom?


Edit: This was suppose to be in GD. Silly me.


I'm prragmatic to a fault, but I have to say that Kant's categorical imperative is a far superior way to go.

People are ends in and of themselves, and if the means are wrong for everyone regardless of situation, they're wrong for you too.


Sometimes crimes are outweighed by the crimes they prevent or repaid. If the law is corrupt, then I see no point in following it. Justice is key. Sometimes evil is necessary. Abortion I believe is one of many crimes. Self defense is still murder.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So I was watching an episode of Medium where detective Scanlon goes vigilante and lets his brother die, and he said "the ends justify the means". Now, do you agree with this Machiavellian axiom?


Edit: This was suppose to be in GD. Silly me.


I'm prragmatic to a fault, but I have to say that Kant's categorical imperative is a far superior way to go.

People are ends in and of themselves, and if the means are wrong for everyone regardless of situation, they're wrong for you too.


Sometimes crimes are outweighed by the crimes they prevent or repaid. If the law is corrupt, then I see no point in following it. Justice is key.


Kant came about his methodology after being distraught by another philosopher (I believe it was hume) kinda destroying morality.

that's why he came up with the method he did for creating rules and ethics. Morality and law kinda go hand in hand ideally, but in practice it gets messy. Kant also felt that the role of government and the law was sort of to be there to guide and protect people who needed it until the grasped the reason and essence of the law and abided by that essence. If they did such, the law itself would become somewhat irrelevant.

It's kinda weird really...

anyhow, you can pick your code of ehtics and the process of deciding what's right or wrong behind it, but generally speaking, they tend to agree on key points, murder's generally bad, don't rape, don't steal, etc... (unless it's your enemy or not human, but these days, we assume all human beings are our friends and neighbors so to speak, rather than those ungodly subhumans the next cave over, and we're getting to a point where other creatures are treated like out children, if not our betters (except for spiders and house centipedes. The cuter you are in the animal world the more people care).... Where was I?

Oh yeah, anyway, the rules are generally the same, regardless of how you get there.

Except.... That Hume guy.. let me go back to him for a moment.

he said, basically, that logic has no part in determining our morality. Instead, that's in the realm of the passions... our feelings. And logic, well, that's just a tool we use to justify our feelings. And despite our efforts to make it seem otherwise, it's always the case, and always should be the case that we're just emotionally driven creatures.

Nevertheless, we generally see something as moral or immoral, and generally they're decent guidelines, kinda necessary for society to function and all.. So why not try to abide by them. To consider the means unimportant as long as you get what you want usually is accompanied by a HUGE clusterfuck of overlooked consequences in order to justify getting what we want.

(and this whole philosophy lesson thing is really informal and such, for anyone that reads it and wants to be overly specific while nitpicking what I posted... Thanks. I already know:P)
7523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Crimson Mage Village
Offline
Posted 1/29/15
I'm reminded of Professor Aristotle Means from Dual Destinies...

I personally believe that the end is justified by the means, and not the other way around. Even a desirable result is produced, though, there are instances where the process itself must be "accepted", but not necessarily praised.
Once again, "like" or "dislike"; no matter what the end justifies, different people will take it different ways.
20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15
Depends on what the ends are.

If you want to go down the street to pick up a chocolate bar, but there are people in the way. You killing them to clear a path, is not justifiable because you got a chocolate bar.

However, If your goal is to overthrow a corrupt government and a large group of people get hurt in the process... yes, the ends do justify the means.

The ends dont always justify the means, the way I look at is, If the means effect more people negatively than the ends effect people positively, the ends do not justify the means.
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Online
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15
A Pyrrhic Victory is never a desirable outcome so no it really isn't justified. Someone satisfied by such an outcome is delusional.
9376 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / San Antonio
Offline
Posted 1/29/15
"You should be aware, fräulein, that there are some people in this world, some irredeemable louts, for whom the means do not require an end."

A quote from the Major from Hellsing Ultimate. I think that describes my view on this topic.
6407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Hotel California
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So I was watching an episode of Medium where detective Scanlon goes vigilante and lets his brother die, and he said "the ends justify the means". Now, do you agree with this Machiavellian axiom?


Edit: This was suppose to be in GD. Silly me.


Come on Peripheral, haven't you ever watched fate/zero? The ends never justify the means (=.=)
6491 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15
Personally I think the important thing is not the end at all but how you arrived at that end. For example A person needs money to buy food so the children they are caring for can eat. But this person's funds are not sufficient enough to buy adequate for these children and the children are starving.If they don't feed the children then the will only grow weaker and weaker and eventually die. So they set out to steal food from many other poor people and the children those poor people are caring for. The children this person is caring are now fed. But at the same time the other poor people and the children they are caring for are now starving. What is the proper course of action here, this person could not do anything. The children they are caring for would likely die or be just as starving as the other poor children. Or the children this person is caring are are fed, at the expense of the other poor people's food, but this person creates suffering for others. Wouldn't it then be a more skillful choice if this person searched for a job so the children they were caring for could eat? Instead of resorting to stealing from others. Either way this person would get the same amount of money and therefore food. But with the job not only would they feed the children they are caring for but, maybe they would even be able to help other poor people andthe children they cared for. If this person just resorts to stealing from them then only suffering is generated both for themselves, the children they are caring for and other poor people. In this example the stealing is representing "the end justifies the means" mentality.
9308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/29/15
if it all works out in the end then what's the problem ? how you got there no longer matters

I mean to get to the end you must get there somehow and sometimes its not pretty
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So I was watching an episode of Medium where detective Scanlon goes vigilante and lets his brother die, and he said "the ends justify the means". Now, do you agree with this Machiavellian axiom?


Edit: This was suppose to be in GD. Silly me.


I'm prragmatic to a fault, but I have to say that Kant's categorical imperative is a far superior way to go.

People are ends in and of themselves, and if the means are wrong for everyone regardless of situation, they're wrong for you too.


Sometimes crimes are outweighed by the crimes they prevent or repaid. If the law is corrupt, then I see no point in following it. Justice is key. Sometimes evil is necessary. Abortion I believe is one of many crimes. Self defense is still murder.


So are you saying somebody should go to jail for defending their life ? Because if you are, that messed up way of thinking (=.=) That like blaming the victim of rape for getting rape.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

So I was watching an episode of Medium where detective Scanlon goes vigilante and lets his brother die, and he said "the ends justify the means". Now, do you agree with this Machiavellian axiom?


Edit: This was suppose to be in GD. Silly me.


I'm prragmatic to a fault, but I have to say that Kant's categorical imperative is a far superior way to go.

People are ends in and of themselves, and if the means are wrong for everyone regardless of situation, they're wrong for you too.


Sometimes crimes are outweighed by the crimes they prevent or repaid. If the law is corrupt, then I see no point in following it. Justice is key. Sometimes evil is necessary. Abortion I believe is one of many crimes. Self defense is still murder.


So are you saying somebody should go to jail for defending their life ? Because if you are, that messed up way of thinking (=.=) That like blaming the victim of rape for getting rape.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

no matter the topic, it always seems o go back to rape around here...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.