The end justifies the means?

[Atom]

What do you think about this saying, do you agree with it?
Let me give you a couple of examples of what I'm talking about:
- Unit 731 experiments;
- Nazi human experiments;
- CIA human experiments and kidnappings;
- Project MKUltra.
And many other examples which are not fixated on [-]my beloved[/-] human experiments...
Maybe you can give some of your own examples where you think the end does/doesn't justify the means?

[Left Now]

Each end justifies its own mean.

[Atom]

Each end justifies its own mean.
I'm sorry, I know, I'm dumb, can you break that down for me?
Because I just see "yes" in your response.

[Left Now]

I'm sorry, I know, I'm dumb, can you break that down for me?
Because I just see "yes" in your response.

That was completely straight forward my friend!Each end justifies its own mean.It means when for example if your end is to save one million people,its mean is not sacrificing even one innocent person who does not want to be sacrificed.

[Atom]

That was completely straight forward my friend!Each end justifies its own mean.It means when for example if your end is to save one million people,its mean is not sacrificing even one innocent person who does not want to be sacrificed.
So you're trying to say that I should not sacrifice this one person to save the million?
If yes, then don't you believe this would be insanely counterproductive?

[Left Now]

So you're trying to say that I should not sacrifice this one person to save the million?
If yes, then don't you believe this would be insanely counterproductive?

Well,it may be.But still if you really want to save a million,you should not even sacrifice one person,unless they themselves want to be sacrificed for that million.

However,it still is my idea,I respect yours if it is anything else.

[Uniquemind]

Half the time people forget what their original goal was.

But yes I believe society does adopt the ends justify the means philosophy, otherwise you'd be stuck in theory and no action.

[Atom]

Half the time people forget what their original goal was.
I would say that people just get lost in opportunities when they are presented to them in a full scale.
But yes I believe society does adopt the ends justify the means philosophy.
But do you think it is a good thing or no? And why do you think so?

[Uniquemind]

I would say that people just get lost in opportunities when they are presented to them in a full scale.

But do you think it is a good thing or no? And why do you think so?

The debate cannot be framed in the context of good or bad because it doesn't get into the finer details of what good or bad means.

One can get lost in the pursuit of their goal, which causes them to meet dilemmas that contradict the foundation of their ideals yet serve immediate benefit and might fulfill another promise one has made, or not see a 3rd available option under times of extreme stress.

In that sense the philosophy is bad, because it represents the easy way out, which human nature tends to take.

However there also lies situations where it is completely logical to have a little sacrifice for the greater good.

[Vlerchan]

The moral value of an action is found in its consequences, so yes.

Of course, the more complicated, and interesting, question is what ends justify what means.

[Microcosm]

I agree with Vlerchan. Utilitarianism tries to answer this question in the most reasonable way, but really who has the right to judge whether the greatest amount of happiness is really the degree by which we can decide which ends justify which means. For instance, by the utilitareanist calculator of "what ends justify what means," a poor person stealing money from a rich person would be justified because it would increase the utility of the poor person more than it would decrease the utility of the rich person. This kind of flaw is what tells me that our opinion on such a thing will vary from person to person, and that there may perhaps be no strict answer.

[Uniquemind]

I agree with Vlerchan. Utilitarianism tries to answer this question in the most reasonable way, but really who has the right to judge whether the greatest amount of happiness is really the degree by which we can decide which ends justify which means. For instance, by the utilitareanist calculator of "what ends justify what means," a poor person stealing money from a rich person would be justified because it would increase the utility of the poor person more than it would decrease the utility of the rich person. This kind of flaw is what tells me that our opinion on such a thing will vary from person to person, and that there may perhaps be no strict answer.

Yeah I agree.

But then again to go further you'd have to look at why that poor person who stole from the rich person become poor in the first place?

Did they have everything only to lose their good financial position due to their own action-consequences or did outside circumstances beyond their control give them a series of unfortunate events leading them to stealing survive and provide?

[Microcosm]

Yeah I agree.

But then again to go further you'd have to look at why that poor person who stole from the rich person become poor in the first place?

Did they have everything only to lose their good financial position due to their own action-consequences or did outside circumstances beyond their control give them a series of unfortunate events leading them to stealing survive and provide?

This kind of dilemma is what makes utilitareanism an impractical system. It's pretty much impossible to really calculate every aspect of a human's mind. Jeremy Bentham tried to use how much money one person had to decide how many "utils"(measurement for happiness or utility) that one person had. Money was like his ruler to measure utility. But, in the end, even this doesn't seem to work. Money simply isn't a definite ruling measure for utility.

[Vlerchan]

For instance, by the utilitareanist calculator of "what ends justify what means," a poor person stealing money from a rich person would be justified because it would increase the utility of the poor person more than it would decrease the utility of the rich person.
In the micro perspective there's a good chance you're not considering the associated trauma with being stolen from. In the macro-perspective there's a good chance you're not considering the associated trauma that would exist in societies where people's assets weren't secure, and could be taken from them at a moments notice, and the extent to which we might be less well off because people wouldn't be as incentived to produce things that make them happy.

Of course, what you just outlined does exist in most modern societies, it's called wealth redistribution: taxation & welfare, we've just created a societies where we see this form of behaviour as legitimate, and - for the most part - the negative externalities described above don't occur.

[Uniquemind]

In the micro perspective there's a good chance you're not considering the associated trauma with being stolen from. In the macro-perspective there's a good chance you're not considering the associated trauma that would exist in societies where people's assets weren't secure, and could be taken from them at a moments notice, and the extent to which we might be less well off because people wouldn't be as incentived to produce things that make them happy.

Of course, what you just outlined does exist in most modern societies, it's called wealth redistribution: taxation & welfare, we've just created a societies where we see this form of behaviour as legitimate, and - for the most part - the negative externalities described above don't occur.


^This

I will also add that there should be a limit to how much one can donate or give to political campaigns.

Right now donations are considered a form of free expression but it's destroying equal representation under the democratic process of fair elections.

[thatcountrykid]

Depends in the situation. If it's my safety and security I will do anything. No matter what it is.

[ValentinClarke]

What do you think about this saying, do you agree with it?
Let me give you a couple of examples of what I'm talking about:
- Unit 731 experiments;
- Nazi human experiments;
- CIA human experiments and kidnappings;
- Project MKUltra.
And many other examples which are not fixated on [-]my beloved[/-] human experiments...
Maybe you can give some of your own examples where you think the end does/doesn't justify the means?

MKULTRA, that was very... I don't know. I think I would carry out these experiments, in order to achieve something. And, if they were genuinely in the interest of science, and trying to find stuff out, just not in a good way, I think thats okay.