if so, is it worth it to do something bad to make way for something good? or is that still wrong?
2007-07-15 17:50:48 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
It depends on what you base your morality. Of the big three moral theories that philosophers currently favor as having sound arguments: at least one of them is based almost entirely on that principle exactly. It is called Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism was invented by Jeremy Bentham and championed and popularized (and somewhat perverted) by John Stuart Mill. This is the theory that bases what is the moral action by counting up the happiness an action creates. In summary Utilitarianism says "That action is moral which leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number".
This sort of moral theory is called a "consequentialist" theory, because it bases its verdict on what is ethical by looking at the consequences of that action. It is this sort of theory that allows for the end to justify the means. Because in a theory where the moral action is defined not by something that is preexisting, or even a principle of action you must follow at the present time, but rather it is determined by the future, the ends.
If an action would lead to a great amount of happiness (good ends) anything can be considered moral. So, if you think Utilitarianism is a good theory, then you think that the ends can justify the means.
2007-07-15 18:05:01 · answer #1 · answered by Nunayer Beezwax 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the ends don't always justify the means. Alot of wars are started because they feel that a little blood shed with make everything better. Look at the Crusades or the Holocaust.
2007-07-15 17:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by smiling_cyanide 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Really I think it depends on the ends and the means.
But usually the only reason someone would say 'the ends justify the means' is when they're trying to justify some pretty nasty means. 8^)
2007-07-15 17:59:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no.if the means are warfare,torture,or a combination or just violence to keep control no. if the means are different without blood shed by protesters with signs on poles then it is justified. if pacifists were to suceed these means at least in wafare would be gone. so a pacifist beleives the means to ending violence is never to use it this is pacifism to it's full extent.
2007-07-15 18:32:23 · answer #4 · answered by darren m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing good in doing something bad .Good and bad can never become good.
2007-07-15 19:17:51 · answer #5 · answered by ROBERT P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I'm ever able to get them to meet, I'll let you know...
2007-07-15 17:54:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
not sure, gotta think about that...
2007-07-15 17:59:30 · answer #7 · answered by stargazer 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋