does the ends justify the means?

Answer 1

it's a balancing test. If the means are so abhorent as to invalidate the ends, then no...else yes.

Answer 2

It's interesting to hear how many people say "no" in the abstract, but then support the US policies and programs that violate US laws, because they claim the goals are more important than following the laws.

Only noble ends can ever justify the methods used to achieve them. And as a wise man above said, it is always a balancing test.

But even noble ends cannot justify criminal means. Especially when there are legal means that are just as effective.

Answer 3

If we simply bypass ethics and do medical testing on people we could find solutions to many diseases far faster. Of course it will result in many unnecessary deaths but think of all the lives we could save in the future. So what if you have to kill 10,000 children to save a million?

Not so clear cut is it?

Answer 4

"The law is made for the state, not the state for the law. If the circumstances are such that a choice must be made between the two, it is the law which must be sacrificed to the state, salus populi suprema lex esto"

Abraham Lincoln

Answer 5

Sometimes. Torture 1 terrorist to save 1,000,000 innocent Americans, absolutely. Heck, I'd torture 1,000,000 terrorists to save 1 innocent American life, but that's just me.

It's tricky, depends on the situation.

Answer 6

I asked this very same question a while ago. I can say I didnt care for the answers that much and I doubt that you do either.

Answer 7

only liberals subscribe to that theory

Answer 8

never does, unless your communist

Answer 9

Never.....

Answer 10

sometimes.