One of the most controversial philosophies in history has been, "The ends justify the means." In other words, it's OK to do bad things and even hurt others if it's necessary and it serves the greater good. How do you feel about this? Is this m.o. legitimite or evil? Both good and bad things have been acomplished this way.
2006-10-06 14:33:42 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Moral values certainly do not allow wrong means for right ends. For instance, no one is allowed to steal money in order to serve a charitable purpose.
Philosophy is, however, not bound by moral values. Yet, even philosophically speaking, it is difficult to justify means by the end. At the time the means are chosen, the end is a mere intent or purpose which may or may not be eventually achieved. Therefore, if at all, end can be a justification only as a post-mortem. In that case the word 'justify' is inappropriate. A post-mortem would simply prove whether the means were effective or not. It can not prove whether they were right or wrong. A counter argument here is the concept of greater good or a sum total of good being positive.
I think, even that argument is flawed. Would it not imply that killing Bush can be justified by someone to make millions of Muslims feel safer? I believe that the concept of greater good or larger interests is nothing but camouflage. In most practical situations, what is greater good or larger interests for a group, is the other way around for another group.
The most compelling logic against end justifying the means is this - that wrong means can only produce apparently good results for the time being or in the short term. For sustainability of the desirable end, the means too have to be desirable (justifiable by itself). A simple example is when a student passes an exam through cheating rather than learning or knowledge.
Because it is ultimately the sustainability logic that shows that ends can not justify means, today's fast moving world has no time to buy the argument. It merrily keeps justifying means by perceived immediate objectives and in the process, it is jeopardizing the future rather irreparably.
2006-10-06 16:24:05 · answer #1 · answered by small 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are 8 Dynamics or 8 parts of life thro' which each individual is striving to exist and survive. These are urges towards existence in 8 different spheres:
Dynamic 1 Self
Dynamic 2 creativity,sex, family unit, rearing of children
Dynamic 3 Groups or as a group, race, etc
Dynamic 4 Mankind
Dynamic 5 Life forms, plants, animals, birds etc
Dynamic 6 Physical or Material Universe(Matter Energy Space & Time)
Dynamic 7 Spiritual Universe, spiritual beings, life source.
Dynamic 8 God, Supreme Being, the infinite,or as infinity.
No one Dynamic from 1 to 7 is more important than any other.
The optimum solution is always that solution which benefits, or causes the greatest good for the greater number of an individual's Dynamics as defined above.
So if the "end" achieves this greatest good for the greater number the "means" will also be optimum.
There is no absolute good or absolute bad, but actions which
harm the greater number of dynamics can be defined as "bad",
Either way the result can be evaluated using the above formula,
good or bad.
Sometimes it is necessary to hurt another in a just cause, but only if it benefits the greater number of dynamics.
2006-10-06 16:46:55 · answer #2 · answered by thetaalways 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it depends on the ends and the means. Sometimes unpleasant things must be done for the greater good. (Hurt one person if it means saving 10 or 100 people? For example, shooting a gunman who has many people hostage. It's either him or all those innocent people. But it would still be preferable to disarm him without killing him if possible.) It's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately some evil people may use this philosophy as an excuse to do evil, which isn't for the greater good but for their own selfish ends...
2006-10-06 15:05:59 · answer #3 · answered by amp 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what ends are supposed to justify what means. But the way the concept is presented indicates that it is most commonly used to justify something undesireable, because if the means are something generally considered to be acceptable, then the word 'justify' would not even be necessary.
I think the phrase is suspect for this reason. When someone says the end justifies the means in a particular situation they are generally trying to convince people that what is bad for them will actually be good for them. Then I say, 'thanks, but no thanks.'
2006-10-06 14:59:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it makes sense. If the total result is good, then doing the thing is good. Of course, you always have to factor in the chance that you will not succeed in the attempt, which could mean the total probable result is bad even though the most common result is good. It's all a matter of logically investigating the overall benefit and then doing the thing if the benefit is positive.
2006-10-06 14:36:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What justifies the end that we use to justify the means to it, and how did we arrive at using that or those means. We study history so that we are not condemned to repeat its horror, and as history progress's as it does, we learn more. Perhaps the end we conceive may secure greater knowledge for a greater good than our present history foretells.
2006-10-06 14:56:52 · answer #6 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i in my view do think of that its opinion based, yet, once you are the guy coaching a philosophical "prepare" then i do have self belief it is extra suitable than that. including Buddhism, human beings deliver it up as a faith, yet in some text fabric it is declared as extra of a existence-style, extra like a philosophy. And the element is, people who're Buddhist so which you should talk are not walking around saying that their faith is an opinion.
2016-11-26 22:04:38 · answer #7 · answered by reader 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If your goal is to get to the store to buy beer as fast as possible during halftime and you run over 3 children on bicycles in your pursuit, was means worth the ends?
Who decides if the end is worthy enough to justify the means?
2006-10-06 17:58:54 · answer #8 · answered by Wait a Minute 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When it comes to doing bad things the end has never justified by the means.One of the out standing example is Aurangzeb the Mogul emperor who killed all his brothers in order to get the throne. I don't think you will agree with him if he says end justifies my means.
2006-10-07 01:17:38 · answer #9 · answered by Brahmanda 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't find that it's considered all that controversial in these pragmatic days -- many subscribe to the M.O. (not me). What greater good is there in a proper system of INDIVIDUAL rights?
2006-10-06 14:46:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋