Do the ends always justify the means?

Answer 1

not always

Answer 2

Bush would seem to be the best example of agreeing with this statement. As "bad" has his administration has been, I think GWB, the man, really has America's best interests at heart. However, he'll do whatever he needs to to get the result he wants (stop terrorism through ill-advised war, domestic spying, Patriot Act, etc.). Ghandi is an interesting case - I'd say he is a big fan of the ends, an advocate of helping those in need, and less attentive to how we get there. Hitler is also an interesting case, but he seemed very attentive to the means - these were, in a way, an end unto themselves. I.e. torture and killing of Jews was the MEANS that trumped the END of "racial clensing." It was evil, but he wasn't using the end to justify the means, the means actually PROVED the end. I'm tempted to pick him for shock value. But clearly, Jesus is the furthest from the statement. His philosophy (which is respected by both Christians and non-Christians) was that your intentions were more important than your actions - the religious leader who prayed on the street was criticized, while the woman who gave all she had, even though it was very little was greatly praised.

Answer 3

Great question but theres no definitive answer. One can make an argument for both sides.

Answer 4

sometimes
i dont think always justifies
more proves there step as either wrong or right never just one

Answer 5

No, not if people are being hurt in the process.

Answer 6

Maybe you should ask Amber this question?

Answer 7

sometimes, if you believe everything happens for a reason

Answer 8

yes

Answer 9

Only sometimes.

Answer 10

yess