First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Ends Justify The Means Do You Agree Or Disagree?
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/15 , edited 2/24/15
I think it depends on how much benefit there is to reaching the end.

If it is outweighed by the cost of the means, I think it is mostly justifiable.

If the loss incurred by the means is greater than what is gained at the end, it is usually not worth it.

Costs and benefits can include lives, money, property, emotional and physical well-being, etc.
20892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Online
Posted 2/24/15
But Machiavellian never say or state that in The Prince...in the book...
6315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hongdae
Offline
Posted 2/24/15
Sure. Doesnt matter if i spend my money on an expensive dinner or give her a lot of $1 bills, i just wanna touch boobs.
6151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / 30.4894° N, 86.54...
Offline
Posted 2/24/15

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.


But if you have the ability to protect yourself or others and you don't "murder" the threat, is that assisting your suicide and the murder of the others you could've prevented?

Posted 2/24/15
Context is everything so maybe, maybe not it depends.
6151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / 30.4894° N, 86.54...
Offline
Posted 2/24/15 , edited 2/24/15

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 when the government metes out the death penalty, regardless of whether or not you believe it is deserved, who is responsible for the murder?

Is it:
- The last one to push the button (or carry out the finale in the act)
- The judge/jury
- The prosecuting lawyer
- The guy and his buddies in congress/house who passed the law(s)
- The cop who caught the criminal
- The taxpayers who indirectly supported the entire process/government

And is a killer someone who kills, someone who has killed, or someone who has the potential to kill? Personally, I go with the last one; it's some pretty killer logic.


Edit: To answer the actual question posed in this thread:

The ends always justify the means to the person or persons performing the task; otherwise they would not carry out their actions. And it's usually determined by benefit to self or humanity as a whole (as intent, regardless of actual end result).
1398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/15
we all have the potential to kill, just a question of being pushed enough in the wrong fashion.

none of us know what we ourselves are truly capable of, well at least not until we have tried everything.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/24/15 , edited 2/24/15

UnComikal 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


So when the government metes out the death penalty, regardless of whether or not you believe it is deserved, who is responsible for the murder?

Is it:
- The last one to push the button (or carry out the finale in the act)
- The judge/jury
- The prosecuting lawyer
- The guy and his buddies in congress/house who passed the law(s)
- The cop who caught the criminal
- The taxpayers who indirectly supported the entire process/government

And is a killer someone who kills, someone who has killed, or someone who has the potential to kill? Personally, I go with the last one; it's some pretty killer logic.


Edit: To answer the actual question posed in this thread:

The ends always justify the means to the person or persons performing the task; otherwise they would not carry out their actions. And it's usually determined by benefit to self or humanity as a whole (as intent, regardless of actual end result).


Depends on the form of government pure Monarchy Saudi Arabia, dictatorships, juntas, or single party systems like China, Russia, the guilt falls on the leadership. Note all these societies are very unequally. Representative democracies like the US, Canada, France, England, guilt falls on the society. Which is bound by a social contract at some level. This is in part why I oppose the death penalty that and people get railroaded or falsely accused or don't have the mental capacity to really understand what they did. Lock them up toss the key feed them let them out in the yard, saves time and money in appeals. Bonus if it turns out they didn't do it you didn't kill them.

PS taxpayers are not indirect when it comes to their government if there is a social contract it is a two way street each impacts the other directly. You vote right you have direct control over who you put in power.


PPS
No the end do not justify the means the number of horrors found in history where this was used as an excuse are legion.
6151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / 30.4894° N, 86.54...
Offline
Posted 2/25/15 , edited 2/25/15


I used the term "indirect" because even if you're opposed to what's going on (like you and the death penalty), you're still supporting the government and their decisions with your taxes; thus, indirect support.

PPPS
The ends always justify the means to whomever means to reach the end. Hitler thought it was worth it. Stalin thought it was worth it. And terrorists think it's worth it. Otherwise it's your opinion versus theirs (granted, you might be the sane one and in the majority... but still). There still exists crazy people who do crazy things to get what they want. And there exist relatively sane ones. Both believing that whatever they try to accomplish is worth what they pay to accomplish it (unless they don't do what they want, or have regrets later).
Posted 2/25/15
Machiavelli never said that. He said, "One must consider the final result."
20 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/25/15
To speak of human in isolation is to neglect that individuals do not live in a vacuum.
For humans to exist in society, where morality matters (various reasons for this), society itself must first exist.
For society to exist, society must aim for self-preservation (the end).
Individuals in the system of society is more likely than not to reflect this sentiment to keep society safe and ultimately themselves and the people they care about.
Therefore, the end is more likely to justify the means in more circumstances.

My personal opinion - an ad hominem argument: the person who preaches the means is absolutely more important at all times is a hypocrite (double standard), whose survival and continuance is the result of their reliance upon society to exploit the earth and other countries/people.
Posted 2/25/15

UnComikal wrote:

The ends always justify the means to whomever means to reach the end. Hitler thought it was worth it. Stalin thought it was worth it. And terrorists think it's worth it. Otherwise it's your opinion versus theirs (granted, you might be the sane one and in the majority... but still). There still exists crazy people who do crazy things to get what they want. And there exist relatively sane ones. Both believing that whatever they try to accomplish is worth what they pay to accomplish it (unless they don't do what they want, or have regrets later).


Or it could be that the "means" simply do not matter; that the desired end result makes everything that comes before it insignificant. So in the end, it's not that "the end justifies the means," but it's more along the lines of "Who gives a fuck about everything else? I just want this."
Sogno- 
45682 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/25/15
if i am mean to you it is totally justified
Posted 2/25/15

Sogno- wrote:

if i am mean to you it is totally justified


you're just a cyber bully
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.