• secretlife said on Aug 28, 2006....

  you could think about this one forever!!
  
  For me and my life, I've come to believe that it's rare when the end justifies the means-
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on Aug 28, 2006....

  In my opinion, not really.
  
  The end becomes tainted if the means are questionable.
  
  Of course, every situation necessitates careful examination.
  
  If you're still thinking about sabotaging(is that even a word?) someone's science project, I say go for it >:)
  
  Howzat coming along, by the way? Done with it already?
  
  Grape.
  

• justop26 said on Aug 28, 2006....

  secretlife: I know! That's why I wanted to know everyone's opinion, since I alone can't figure it out. Oh, but does that mean that there has been a situation when it did justify it?
  
  GrapeKoolaid: That's an honorable opinion. Why pursue something if it's going to make you do not so good stuff, right?
  
  Hahaha, see, maybe I won't do it, but someone who REALLY wants to win may do it. Is the thropy worth it? Maybe, maybe not.
  
  Well, it's not done quite yet... There are a couple of topics that really got me interested (including the trebuchet), but the determining factor (read: MONEY) is not decided yet. Basically, I've got to work on a tight budget.
  
  Thanks for replying! :)
  

• JadeLondon said on Aug 29, 2006....

  If I am going to infringe on someone else whether it be principles or otherwise, then I won't do it--unless provoked.
  
  For example, I wouldn't quit a job without notice. Except in the case of my last job, where twice I was locked out.
  
  I cannot apply a blanket statement to everything or everyone--but if I must choose one side or another--I have to say I am kind of a softie.
  
  If I have to hurt someone for the greater good--well, that just doesn't seem right to me.
  
  It makes it really hard to say no.
  

• silverwhisper said on Aug 29, 2006....

  the ends justify the means is basically a reformulation of might makes right when you sort it all out. and i cannot accept the idea that power grants a moral or ethical value to something.
  
  machiavelli is a very realpolitik guy. he's the ultimate in pragmatism.
  
  but by definition, that means he isn't exactly the moral compass by which one should navigate life's seas.
  
  at least, IMHO.
  
  ed
  

• FaithInMind said on Aug 29, 2006....

  In most cases the choice is not between right and wrong. Those are obvious. The choice is between selecting between two wrongs, one greater and one smaller.
  
  Is it wrong to discipline/punish/imprison someone - a child, a disruptive family member, a friend, a rapist, in order to protect or maintain stability within a family / circle of friends / community? Clearly the person being disciplined will not enjoy the experience, but the "end" - restoring order, harmony and some sense of security within the family or community is clearly important.
  
  In the case of the rapist, to simply let him remain free because the "end" (restoring a sense of security to the community) does not justify the "means" (denying this individual the freedom we all treasure, inflicting upon him the stigma of conviction, burdening him with sex offender status upon his release) will not be tolerated by the community for very long. A greater wrong would result. And so we commit the "lesser" wrong of jailing and punishing the rapist.
  
  That said, beating a confession out of a suspect (means) in order to obtain a conviction (end) can't be justified.
  
  Should we not have involved ourselves in WWII? The end was clear. But the means to that end resulted in millions of violent deaths. Did that end justify the means? I'd say yes.
  
  So clearly the end does justify the means, sometimes. And the end does not justify the means, sometimes. Each decision must be treated such as it is: unique.
  

• happykat said on Aug 29, 2006....

  I think it is entirely dependent on the situation.
  I subscribe to the teleologist approach to ethics and morality. This means that each situation needs to be weighed by its own circumstances.
  
  To me there is no hard and fast rule for anything.....Is lying always wrong? No, because I would lie to protect a life. Is prostitution always wrong? No, if i had no other way to feed my kids, then I would do what was necessary . Is killing always wrong? No, I will protect myself and my family from harm even if that means killing another person (see previous mention of war).
  
  There are times when the ends justify the means, many times in fact. It shouldn't always be that way, though. One should not always justify their actions by pointing to a desired result.
  
  Morality and ethical guidelines are just that .....guidelines. These are fluid concepts that should be used as tools to live a good life, to make the most good for the most people.
  
  Anyone who promotes/advocates a rigid approach to morality or life is, to me, close-minded and (for lack of a better term) lazy-minded, too.
  
  just my $0.45.
  

• Indiefilm said on Aug 29, 2006....

  To me its a question to ask before doing something. Can I accopmish my ends through a justifiable means.
  
  If I need food, and I go to a store and buy food with my money, then the ends (food) justifies the means (purchase my own money)
  
  And as FD stated, it usually isn't a problem when faced with a simple right/wrong situation. Its when your faced with a which is less wrong situation that the question becomes sticky or complicated.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 29, 2006....

  Of course the ends justify the needs. The problem is that they are going to be your goals and they won't line up exactly with the masses. The world naturally applies checks and balances to every move you make because people who agree with you help you, and those who don't hinder you.
  
  Least in a normal world that is how it works. Unfortunately so few people are willing to judge others these days that the good get no support, and the bad gets ignored.
  
  The short answer though is yes. I would take over the world in a heartbeat if I could and I would make it into a better world to the best of my ability.
  

• Apollo said on Sep 23, 2006....

  There are no means only ends, that is: action with out consequence is no action.
  
  A mean (action) by definition carries a consequence and a consequence is an end.
  
  For one to answer the question “will the ends justify the means” one must ask this: will the consequences of all of my actions be justifiable in terms of my accomplishments?
  
  Personally I think that they can, however considering all the ends can be a difficult thing. The actual weighing of good and bad consequences is often easy compared with what it takes to find all of those consequences.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 23, 2006....

  apollo: but old niccolo was saying that so long as your objective is worthwhile, the method whereby you accomplish it doesn't matter: there's really no weighing to be done.
  
  ed
  

• Apollo said on Sep 25, 2006....

  But when you put to use a method you will almost always have other, unintended, consequences (ends) those have to be weighted ageist your intended consequence (end), to find out if your venture will be profitable. The probabilities of outcome for each consequence also have to be figured.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 25, 2006....

  sure, but doesn't this philosophy allow you to ignore a number of those unintended consequences?
  
  ed
  

• Apollo said on Sep 25, 2006....

  One can ignore a consequence all they want; it doesn’t make anything go away. The fact that it will happen and affect you is what makes it a consequence. Or so I think.
  
  One can argue that totally ignoring something makes it go away, but I’ve never been convinced. It is an intriguing idea however, answering that question leads to some other more interesting consequences (man, I’m getting sick of that word!). :)
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 25, 2006....

  Only emotional things that pertaining to the individual can be ignored until they go away. Just about everything else you eventually have to deal with.
  

Comment on "I wonder..."

Currently tagged	ethics moral rights philosophy ends means machiavelli (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously