Thought point for the weekend.

[nadriel]

Does the end justify the means? Support your statement, whether for or against.

Comments

[presshere.livejournal.com]

The end, if you want it badly enough, always justifies the means. I'm not much of a one for conscience *blushes*, and think any way you can get what you want is okay. I sound weird now, I know.

x

[nocturne-uk.livejournal.com]

Hmmm.
If you'd have posted this before christmas I'd have the end does NOT justify the means.

However, at this exact moment in time, I'd say it does.
Support my argument? I'm not sure that I could support an argument either way to be honest. Perhaps I'm just in a selfish, hateful and petty state of mind...
I dunno.

Re:

[nadriel.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm still at the stage of believing the end doesn't justify the means. But I've widened my persoanl definition of acceptable means somewhat.

Re:

[nocturne-uk.livejournal.com]

LOL
Fair do's. I did say 'no mroe mr nice guy' the other day ....
(I did write a very detailed example here, but then realised that it's a little 'shady' and didnt want the repurcussions just yet)

Re:

[nadriel.livejournal.com]

Yeah- well, I'm still nice, but not necessarily as "fluffy" anywmore...

Re:

[nocturne-uk.livejournal.com]

*looks at nadriel's icon*
*imagines said icon in fluffy form*
*attempts to stifle laughter*

[deuschristus.livejournal.com]

Nope. In my opinion the end never justifies the means if the means is enforced by others (if you see what I mean). That's the problem I have about Utilitarianism, it's basically playing God & thinking we are all powerful & can control processes. To my mind intentionally shooting one innocent person in order to save twenty isn't justified.
However altruistic means is totally different, eg one person choosing to give up their own life in order to save twenty.

[iamseph.livejournal.com]

yeah, I agree, who cares if one could die to save another twenty, its wrong

I mean, shit you could have 21 dead people instead of 1, w00t!

Re:

[iamseph.livejournal.com]

Hmm... but more seriously, yes the ends justify the means, I suspect the thing that puts a lot of people off of this belief is that a lot of f'ing morons in the world don't actually consider to a full extent the damage they are causing for their means, and value themselves too highly to make an impartial judgement on what ends balance what means.

Re:

[iamseph.livejournal.com]

gah typo, "with their means" not "for their means"...
stupid half-consciousness

[(Anonymous)]

To be honest i think its too much of a sweeping statement. it really depends on what the end is and what the mean is. All actions shuld be considered on there own merit

[davidnm.livejournal.com]

Umm. The closest thing I've ever heard to a proper answer to this one is to the effect that the ends *can* justify the means, but it depends very much on the circumstances. Essentially, they can if the means reault in less harm, so to speak, then inaction would.
Basically, it depends on the specfics of any given situtation.

[brindy.livejournal.com]

http://www.monkeywench.co.uk/pictures/showPicture.php?image=172&album=10

[iamseph.livejournal.com]

Eh I was a little bit vague there, yes I was referring to suitable ends and means, my main point being that I doubt most people can make an impartial judgement as to what is an acceptable loss for a given gain.