First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Ends Justify The Means Do You Agree Or Disagree?
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

morechunch 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.


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.



I won't deny the faults of it, but it's a good framework to begin with and its universality and offer of choice and freedom are some of its best highlights.

Unfortunately, kant's also kind of the last highlight in ethics, with exception to Mill and utilitarianism, after which, things kind of tend towards relativism and the aforementioned consequentialism, which, to me, are a step back in ethics.

The golden rule of jesus isn't too far away from kant's ethics either... "Love others....", "judge not...." and all....
18006 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Online
Posted 1/29/15
Wasn't Kiritsugu all about the ends rather than the means?
11764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Edo
Offline
Posted 1/29/15
(* ̄、ゝ ̄)
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15

dchompy wrote:

Wasn't Kiritsugu all about the ends rather than the means?


yes, but not necessarily from an ethical standpoint, (he uses himself, rather than others), but definitely regarding traditions and traditional methods.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/15 , edited 1/29/15

serifsansserif wrote:


morechunch 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.


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.



I won't deny the faults of it, but it's a good framework to begin with and its universality and offer of choice and freedom are some of its best highlights.

Unfortunately, kant's also kind of the last highlight in ethics, with exception to Mill and utilitarianism, after which, things kind of tend towards relativism and the aforementioned consequentialism, which, to me, are a step back in ethics.

The golden rule of jesus isn't too far away from kant's ethics either... "Love others....", "judge not...." and all....


Hence the reference to the holy text, but he did do a good job of highlighting ethics and deism (which becomes theism).

So we have Catholics and Episcopalians and Baptists. It's not about being wrong, it's about being over somebody's head when everybody else is suddenly (after a few generations) not on board, and being where they look next.

Kant is good, but ethics is like a feedback loop. You can't keep current with ethics without looking at "ethos," and man, ethos sucks these days, it's hardly a word. Kant is very much not alive, just like Jesus. Nobody is going to totally believe their word, and they didn't have it totally right for our current situation.

Stop taking a dead man's word for it to answer our current problems, I guess is my philosophy.
8345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 1/30/15
That will always depend on the context.
So sometimes it will be justified and sometimes it wont.
Posted 1/30/15

ChaoticRuins 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.


Come on Peripheral, haven't you ever watched fate/zero? The ends never justify the means (=.=)


I put off Fate Zero until I finish the Fate Stay Night visual novel.
4510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 1/30/15
The trouble with using quotes as blanket statements is that they won't necessarily fit every situation to everyone's satisfaction.

There's those that believe the journey to a goal is just as important or more important than the goal.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/30/15

morechunch wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


morechunch 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.


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.



I won't deny the faults of it, but it's a good framework to begin with and its universality and offer of choice and freedom are some of its best highlights.

Unfortunately, kant's also kind of the last highlight in ethics, with exception to Mill and utilitarianism, after which, things kind of tend towards relativism and the aforementioned consequentialism, which, to me, are a step back in ethics.

The golden rule of jesus isn't too far away from kant's ethics either... "Love others....", "judge not...." and all....


Hence the reference to the holy text, but he did do a good job of highlighting ethics and deism (which becomes theism).

So we have Catholics and Episcopalians and Baptists. It's not about being wrong, it's about being over somebody's head when everybody else is suddenly (after a few generations) not on board, and being where they look next.

Kant is good, but ethics is like a feedback loop. You can't keep current with ethics without looking at "ethos," and man, ethos sucks these days, it's hardly a word. Kant is very much not alive, just like Jesus. Nobody is going to totally believe their word, and they didn't have it totally right for our current situation.

Stop taking a dead man's word for it to answer our current problems, I guess is my philosophy.


For morality to even exist as a question, it presupposes agency and free will..... Which causes it all to fork two ways if you object to Kant..

1. going the route towards the moral relativism of Sartre and existentialism

2. or disengage from morality altogether because one's belief in a purely material and therefore, deterministic, world abhors the choice necessary for ethics to exist.
1651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Mor Dhona
Offline
Posted 1/30/15
It depends on what the greater evil is.

Kill a kid to save humanity? From a purely objective viewpoint, justified. You did what you had to do, no matter how unpleasant it was and how horrible you or anyone else considers you for it.

Doom humanity so said kid doesn't die? Nope, not justified. Where before you were directly responsible for the death of one (possibly innocent) person, you're now indirectly responsible for genocide.
Posted 1/30/15 , edited 1/30/15
"History repeats itself", is one of those words people say.
Posted 1/30/15
No. The means justify the end.
1926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Surrey, UK
Offline
Posted 1/30/15
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it all depends on the situation.
26597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nestled between e...
Offline
Posted 2/1/15
Wholly dependent upon the imperatives of the situation.

I don't have much else. These days I could care less about philosophy, I'm not even happy with my own life.
17201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 2/1/15
People in power should not follow the means to an end, it will most likely lead to genocide.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.