Do the Ends Justify the Means?
I meant to put a poll in this thread. Dammit. Sorry guys and gals.
I meant to put a poll in this thread. Dammit. Sorry guys and gals.
What's More Important: End's or Mean's?
- Thread starter TimmyBoston
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
Yeah Nick! You're the man! 
Desirable ends never justify suspect means.
How's this for an answer--purity of intent.
If I have someone ill--the ideal way to get them better is to find the problem. Sometime I can't but with some support they get better. I tell people that though my intent is to get a diagnosis--I'd rather them be better and me not know what it is than not get better and I know exactly why they will remian ill.
I suspect there is no perfect means and is no perfect ends. All we can do is make our decisions based upon our highest values. The less selfish we are in making our decisions, the better we will all be.
Still for the poll, I vote means.
If I have someone ill--the ideal way to get them better is to find the problem. Sometime I can't but with some support they get better. I tell people that though my intent is to get a diagnosis--I'd rather them be better and me not know what it is than not get better and I know exactly why they will remian ill.
I suspect there is no perfect means and is no perfect ends. All we can do is make our decisions based upon our highest values. The less selfish we are in making our decisions, the better we will all be.
Still for the poll, I vote means.
Depends on individual situations. But for me and when working with college students--I find the ends are more important. These kids will forget me in a semester or two and all of the "torture" that I inflict on them, but they will remember the skills that they learned while in my class. I'm not trying to be their friend, but rather give them the skill set that they will need to succeed at the next level.
This question is totally out of context.
What means is being used to what end?
What means is being used to what end?
Means. Since future ends are rarely guaranteed, the unintended consequences of deleterious means should feared more then the benefit of the predicted end(s).
If that made sense...
If that made sense...
Ethical means justify bad ends far less often than bad means justify good ends.
Pat, could you please elaborate. I don't really understand the first part of this statement. Are you saying that behaving in an ethical manner in order to attain a bad result (by this do you mean unethical/evil or just an unforseen bad result) is less desireable than behaving unethically in order to to attain a good result?
Thanks
Means.
Marty
Marty
"Bad" ends, IMHO, are very rarely justifiable. No one works in an ethical manner with the express purpose of obtaining a "bad" result, however what I refer to is more along the lines of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
If I can risk bringing up a terribly contentious example, I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists that believes that the war in Iraq was undertaken for ulterior motives. I think it was, for the most part, well-intentioned. However, I feel as though the end result (as it exists now) has been bad. This might be what I consider "good" means not justifying "bad" ends.
I'm not expressly advocating either side in my statement -- I'm just stating that I can think of far more examples where less-than-exemplary ethics/means justify "good" ends than the converse. Think about the Uruguayan rugby team's plane crash in the Andes, the use of variolation in the development of the Smallpox vaccine, or something like that. Depending on the nature of the "end," such actions could be justifiable. I believe much more often than a justifiable "bad" end.
Please don't slaughter me for my postulant philosophising -- just the way I see things.
- Thread starter
- #14
It's just a generalization. There is no context.
"Bad" ends, IMHO, are very rarely justifiable. No one works in an ethical manner with the express purpose of obtaining a "bad" result, however what I refer to is more along the lines of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
If I can risk bringing up a terribly contentious example, I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists that believes that the war in Iraq was undertaken for ulterior motives. I think it was, for the most part, well-intentioned. However, I feel as though the end result (as it exists now) has been bad. This might be what I consider "good" means not justifying "bad" ends.
I'm not expressly advocating either side in my statement -- I'm just stating that I can think of far more examples where less-than-exemplary ethics/means justify "good" ends than the converse. Think about the Uruguayan rugby team's plane crash in the Andes, the use of variolation in the development of the Smallpox vaccine, or something like that. Depending on the nature of the "end," such actions could be justifiable. I believe much more often than a justifiable "bad" end.
Please don't slaughter me for my postulant philosophising -- just the way I see things.
I assumed you were headed in a "the road to hell is paved...." direction but wanted to verify. It's a bit of a departure (though certainly both related and relevant) from the strictly utilitarian "ends v. means" topic as the consequences are unintended but it's still a good point. (How's that for a run-on sentence?
) The question might then be: Which is worse (a) Good intentions inadvertently leading to the greater bad or (b) unethical means purposefully used to further the greater good? That's a damn good question.
(a) condemns the end result while (b) condemns the means. Both appear pretty valid to me. From a practical point of view I might have to break this down into a matter of degrees (at what point is something no longer worth the trade-off? ) in order to measure which is worse. Of course, a principled philosophical viewpoint does not allow for this.
Historically I think you are probably correct. That is to say, more damage has probably come from (a) than from (b). I don't think that makes (b) the more allowable error though. I like Frank's point regarding future results rarely being guaranteed . Also, I suspect in many cases that the greater good being vaulted is not really desired by those seeking to bend the rules in order to attain it.
These types of conversations often prove fascinating. How we choose to define the question in these cases often reveals much more about us than our answers do.
Although I'm not as well spoken as some of those who have posted above me, I don't think this question can be answered without a specific situation. Its easy to make moral judgements if you are not the person who has had to make the decision. I have had to make a few of those decisions in my life, and am content that I have done what is/was right.
