First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Ends Justify The Means Do You Agree Or Disagree?
543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Bakersfield
Offline
Posted 1/29/15
We are discussing this very topic in one of my classes, this is a very consequentialist question.

John Stuart Mills argued that the only thing that we should concern ourselves with moral imperatives is the ends. For if the ends are negative, then the ends are morally wrong. However, if the ends are positive, then one is determined to be morally right.

Immanuel Kant's deontology is the exact opposite of the consequentialist attitude. For Kant the ends are not the key in determining what the morally right actions are. Instead, Kant argued that we should only concern ourselves with the means, but more importantly the reason for those means is what ultimately determines the moral worth of the actions. Our actions are determined to be good, if and only if, we have the genuine intention for seeing an action through to the end. What I am getting at here is that the ends are irrelevant to the deontologist. For the deontologist, if the ends turn out to be bad even though you had the right intentions to produce the best possible outcome, you are still determined to be morally right. But the opposite is also true. For if the end results are good but the intentions are genuinely bad, then the action itself is wrong.

I guess my question to you is how do you view the topic? I am more than happy to discuss this further if you decide to answer this question.

Personally I don't like deontology, I think that I am a bit more of a consequentialist or even a relativist.

For me the ends do not always justify the means. but in a way the means do not always justify the ends.
9308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 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.


you don't always have to murder someone to defend yourself.....the fact is no matter how pretty you try to make it look killing someone is still killing someone no matter what you call it or why you did it either way they are dead simply saying "it was self defence" and then moving on with your life is such a scum bag move and as far as rape goes that's a bad example as there is no simple loop hole like self defence for rape however with killing someone all you have to do is say "self defence" and its all A-OK......now THATS a messed up system way of thinking AND way of living
Posted 1/29/15
as long as your name isn't ISIS

Posted 1/29/15

blitzkrieg01282 wrote:


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.


you don't always have to murder someone to defend yourself.....the fact is no matter how pretty you try to make it look killing someone is still killing someone no matter what you call it or why you did it either way they are dead simply saying "it was self defence" and then moving on with your life is such a scum bag move and as far as rape goes that's a bad example as there is no simple loop hole like self defence for rape however with killing someone all you have to do is say "self defence" and its all A-OK......now THATS a messed up system way of thinking AND way of living


I talking about if somebody tried to kill you or there reasonable danger of dying by the attacker. I meant. If somebody try to kill me. I will no had any mercy on them. Now if I kick their ass and they are unable to fight. Then I stop but depending of the situation. Also if people try to attack me in numbers, be a gang or a mob. I will no hesitate to kill them. Because there a real danger of me getting kill. I saying it depend of the situation and the reasonable expectation of the situation. When I used rape as example I was referring how stupid it was the argument. Yes killing somebody without a reason and valid reason is wrong. Killing somebody to defend yourself or somebody else life is still murder but is justifiable. But doing it because I felt in danger is just stupid. The only way that is valid. Will be in the context of the situation. Because that argument just by it self make no sense.
9308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15
bottom line is to kill someone is the same justice or not murder is murder....call it "self defence if you want" but like I said before a killer is a killer no matter the reason EDIT; but with that said by the laws way of looking at it...its not the same
Posted 1/29/15

blitzkrieg01282 wrote:

bottom line is to kill someone is the same justice or not murder is murder....call it "self defence if you want" but like I said before a killer is a killer no matter the reason EDIT; but with that said by the laws way of looking at it...its not the same


So if somebody shoot me umm, I'm suppose to just take the bullet and do nothing ?
9308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15
no haha you shoot back ...but you will still be a killer/murderer I mean if a man kills you then you die and he is a killer but if you kill him then you are a killer....."self defence" doesn't change that. its just something to call it when killing someone was un-avoidable but I would not call it justified ending someone's life and possibly existence cant truly be justified only un-avoidable EDIT; and what I mean by un-avoidable is that there is no way out of it if you don't kill him then you die instead most "self defence" cases could have been avoided somehow by such a simple thing as taking a taxi home instead of walking or don't take the shortcut through that dark park ect OR give him the money...don't piss people off so much....don't steal from people I know a lot of cases where the defendant started the trouble leading to him killing someone in self-defence
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

Zelgadis wrote:

We are discussing this very topic in one of my classes, this is a very consequentialist question.

John Stuart Mills argued that the only thing that we should concern ourselves with moral imperatives is the ends. For if the ends are negative, then the ends are morally wrong. However, if the ends are positive, then one is determined to be morally right.

Immanuel Kant's deontology is the exact opposite of the consequentialist attitude. For Kant the ends are not the key in determining what the morally right actions are. Instead, Kant argued that we should only concern ourselves with the means, but more importantly the reason for those means is what ultimately determines the moral worth of the actions. Our actions are determined to be good, if and only if, we have the genuine intention for seeing an action through to the end. What I am getting at here is that the ends are irrelevant to the deontologist. For the deontologist, if the ends turn out to be bad even though you had the right intentions to produce the best possible outcome, you are still determined to be morally right. But the opposite is also true. For if the end results are good but the intentions are genuinely bad, then the action itself is wrong.

I guess my question to you is how do you view the topic? I am more than happy to discuss this further if you decide to answer this question.

Personally I don't like deontology, I think that I am a bit more of a consequentialist or even a relativist.

For me the ends do not always justify the means. but in a way the means do not always justify the ends.


I lie.... in the middle somewhere. I try to do my best according to Kant, but am ok with cheating a little bit in order to get the results that I need to result. It really depends for me on how much I can live with Kant's morality and how necessary the ends are.

For example, in a leadership role, I always force myself to abide by the same rules as I dictate to others. I prefer the Universality of it. I take losses because of this because, for the most part, the rules being universal is more of the ideal I want to make happen... But, in the same role, I might avoid taking a decision before the council I lead and "cheat" by considering it a "personal project" because I cannot abide by the decision making process that I know will ensue (because I know it's unpopular amongst my committee who is VERY self interested), but I know long term, the "victim" is going to be primarily myself, and the good will affect a far greater group...So.... Kant goes out the window then. :P

But generally we live by Kant as the ideal of which we try to promote and uphold.
1931 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/15
Depends.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

blitzkrieg01282 wrote:

bottom line is to kill someone is the same justice or not murder is murder....call it "self defence if you want" but like I said before a killer is a killer no matter the reason EDIT; but with that said by the laws way of looking at it...its not the same


http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/339/1/6/people_die_if_they_get_killed_by_raptorj-d34bauk.jpg

Sorry.... just couldn't resist.... >.>

I'll go now..
9308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

serifsansserif wrote:


blitzkrieg01282 wrote:

bottom line is to kill someone is the same justice or not murder is murder....call it "self defence if you want" but like I said before a killer is a killer no matter the reason EDIT; but with that said by the laws way of looking at it...its not the same


http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/339/1/6/people_die_if_they_get_killed_by_raptorj-d34bauk.jpg

Sorry.... just couldn't resist.... >.>

I'll go now..



you sir are awesome and made me laugh so tyvm
Posted 1/29/15

blitzkrieg01282 wrote:

no haha you shoot back ...but you will still be a killer/murderer I mean if a man kills you then you die and he is a killer but if you kill him then you are a killer....."self defence" doesn't change that. its just something to call it when killing someone was un-avoidable but I would not call it justified ending someone's life and possibly existence cant truly be justified only un-avoidable EDIT; and what I mean by un-avoidable is that there is no way out of it if you don't kill him then you die instead most "self defence" cases could have been avoided somehow by such a simple thing as taking a taxi home instead of walking or don't take the shortcut through that dark park ect OR give him the money...don't piss people off so much....don't steal from people I know a lot of cases where the defendant started the trouble leading to him killing someone in self-defence


I agree.
9308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


blitzkrieg01282 wrote:

no haha you shoot back ...but you will still be a killer/murderer I mean if a man kills you then you die and he is a killer but if you kill him then you are a killer....."self defence" doesn't change that. its just something to call it when killing someone was un-avoidable but I would not call it justified ending someone's life and possibly existence cant truly be justified only un-avoidable EDIT; and what I mean by un-avoidable is that there is no way out of it if you don't kill him then you die instead most "self defence" cases could have been avoided somehow by such a simple thing as taking a taxi home instead of walking or don't take the shortcut through that dark park ect OR give him the money...don't piss people off so much....don't steal from people I know a lot of cases where the defendant started the trouble leading to him killing someone in self-defence


I agree.


me- 1001
the world-102937457493027864903547

one step at a time I will be positive KD

=p
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
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.


Kant needed divine right to guide human law, though, and divine right has been thoroughly debunked through the revelations of the edits and omissions of the holy text that Kant wouldn't drop.

He's so old.

Ends and means are tired and done, it's a catchphrase, the OP watched a show that had a twist based on a catchphrase that everybody knows.

Posted 1/29/15

blitzkrieg01282 wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


blitzkrieg01282 wrote:

no haha you shoot back ...but you will still be a killer/murderer I mean if a man kills you then you die and he is a killer but if you kill him then you are a killer....."self defence" doesn't change that. its just something to call it when killing someone was un-avoidable but I would not call it justified ending someone's life and possibly existence cant truly be justified only un-avoidable EDIT; and what I mean by un-avoidable is that there is no way out of it if you don't kill him then you die instead most "self defence" cases could have been avoided somehow by such a simple thing as taking a taxi home instead of walking or don't take the shortcut through that dark park ect OR give him the money...don't piss people off so much....don't steal from people I know a lot of cases where the defendant started the trouble leading to him killing someone in self-defence


I agree.


me- 1001
the world-102937457493027864903547

one step at a time I will be positive KD

=p


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.