First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Does the End justify the means ?
19907 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / El paso Tx
Offline
Posted 7/15/16
Do something terrible but its fixs or helps out in the end shoudnt we try it?
Posted 7/15/16 , edited 7/15/16
Depends on circumstance.
9528 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 7/15/16 , edited 7/15/16
Aang should've killed the Fire Lord.
11774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / McDonough
Offline
Posted 7/15/16
Reminds me of the Fable 3 storyline
10487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Birmingham, UK
Offline
Posted 7/15/16
I don't think so, we should find the best solution without compromising ourselves, it's like killing people in the name of peace, peace may be obtained but true everlasting peace cannot be obtained on a path of bloodshed
24271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/15/16

quincristine wrote:

Depends on circumstance.


.
Posted 7/15/16
Based on the assumption that there is actually an end, I doubt it in most cases since it's more like trimming weeds in a garden in an attempt to get rid of said weeds.
Posted 7/15/16 , edited 7/15/16
When I'm impartial, I can keep a level head so as to believe in the power of nurturing. When I'm the victim of loss, I lose my head, and believe only in the power of revenge.
3057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The 2D World
Offline
Posted 7/15/16
Well last time I heard that phrase the teacher of one of the main character's friend got murdered.

So probably not.

Anyways depends on the circumstance. And the means's involved.
39797 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Finland- The Cave...
Offline
Posted 7/15/16
It does, when result is in overall extremely beneficial for the cause you take measures to advance.

Example :

Killing genetically mutated person, with a fatal incurable disability to "improve gene pool" and avoid potential deaths in future, due the extremely dominant nature of the gene ?

No, means are not justified. That is just pure murder, with little impact.

Eradicating everyone with same gene at once without touching others to make sure that gene does not plague future humans even if it means killing millions, but potentially saving billions ? yes, worth it, if it preserves the future population from extinction.

82334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 7/15/16

Doomdancer wrote:

Eradicating everyone with same gene at once without touching others to make sure that gene does not plague future humans even if it means killing millions, but potentially saving billions ? yes, worth it, if it preserves the future population from extinction.



What about when, after killing several hundred thousand or even killing millions, it is discovered that the research was wrong. The gene once thought to be the cause of a future extinction was found not to be the cause of whatever extinction event they were concerned about?

The ends do not justify the means.
59230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/15/16

Doomdancer wrote:

It does, when result is in overall extremely beneficial for the cause you take measures to advance.

Example :

Killing genetically mutated person, with a fatal incurable disability to "improve gene pool" and avoid potential deaths in future, due the extremely dominant nature of the gene ?

No, means are not justified. That is just pure murder, with little impact.

Eradicating everyone with same gene at once without touching others to make sure that gene does not plague future humans even if it means killing millions, but potentially saving billions ? yes, worth it, if it preserves the future population from extinction.



Still not justified. A better solution would be quarantine and voluntary sterilization.

Bear in mind your solution strongly resembles the eugenics practices of the past that were abusive for no other reason than to remove the 'undesirables'. While you stipulate 'fatal', 'incurable', and 'dominant nature of the gene' as mitigation factors for your reasoning, you are still denying the affected individuals a chance at a meaningful existence.

'The ends justify the means' is a slippery slope argument - one that can well rebound upon the originator.
Dragon
58357 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Online
Posted 7/15/16 , edited 7/15/16
Usually not, but life isn't binary, so sometimes-ish.

A better question might be - would this make me similar to those I'm against? If so, it's probably a bad idea, since I'm against them.
7415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 7/15/16
Ah...I remember this question from Psych class...

We were asked the old "if you could travel back in time to kill Hitler as a baby and save millions of lives...would you?". I could never answer it then and sadly still can't answer it now almost twenty years later.

There are so many ways the future may be changed by one single act that even by doing the wrong thing for the right reasons nothing says things will be better. You may even take the power of an insane man and accidentally give it to someone smarter yet more insane and bigoted who isn't afraid to do things on even a grander scale.

Even though I can't truthfully answer if I would or wouldn't do something evil for a good cause I'd have to say I'd side with caution on making things even worse than they already were.
5625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Korriban
Offline
Posted 7/15/16 , edited 7/15/16
Yes, always. The end state is the most important state.



PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Aang should've killed the Fire Lord.


Definitely agree with that, PV...should never have gone all Deus Ex Machina with that bending taking stuff
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.