In high school speech and debate team I was taught a concept in moral philosophy.
It regards doing something immoral to to achieve an end that was more moral than the action.
For example: If you could go back in time and kill Hitler to spare the atrocities committed by him, the moral lapse of the killing was more or less negated by the fact that the killing saved millions of lives.
There is a name for this concept, does anyone know it?
2007-06-27 04:50:55 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Answer is Consequentialism. Thanks for the help guys.
2007-06-27 05:49:53 · update #1
"The ends justifies the means"
Authored by Niccolo Machiavelli
~Toll Booth Willy
2007-06-27 05:33:38 · answer #1 · answered by Toll Booth Willy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the concept is the end justifies the means.
However, to kill Hitler would not be wrong because it is the killing of a monster to protect the innocent.
But it would be immoral to hurt, in any way, an innocent person to achieve a greater good.
For example, if it were pointed out that if you killed an innocent boy, and by that death, all cancer would be eliminated, that would not be morally licit (although, others hurt others in far lesser ways for far lesser supposed goods, which is still wrong).
.
2007-06-27 12:11:00 · answer #2 · answered by canx_mp058 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This concept is utterly ridiculous! Why dwell on things that could never take place in the first place. This may seam like a higher way of thinking but it is useless and a great waste of time!
2007-06-27 12:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by jwfuzzbuster2001 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"The ends justify the means" is the phrase you're looking for.
The question you have to ask is "To whom?".
2007-06-27 12:00:29 · answer #4 · answered by Irv S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋