Do the ends justify the means?

Sometimes yes sometimes no.

When I was 5 years old with 105 fever and I didn’t want to get into a cool tub of water I remember my dad hurting me a little to keep me still while I was screaming and crying and my mom wrapped a wet towel around me. Did the end justify the means? Absolutely. No question in my mind.

Or, that girl who was in the news who was ordered by the courts to receive cancer treatment that she was refusing. I said here on Fluther when we discussed it that they should tie her down and give it to her. From what I understand, in retrospect she’s glad she was ordered to do it.

What about when a parent makes their kid do things they really don’t want to do? That happens constantly, sometimes under threat of punishment, sometimes by bribing the kid. Usually, the end is pretty important and worth it.

Then there are things that the means are illegal, lack integrity, or hurt others, and the vast majority of the time the end does not justify the means.

It depends on the situation. Lately, there’s been serious articles written in America’s most prestigious conservative journals (the Nation and now others) which contemplate justification of shooting the Guantanamo prisoners as a means of preventing their release and returning to their terrorist cells. Basically, we’re talking a highly accelerated life sentence. In my opinion, no, the end does not justify the means in this case.

Here’s one. I have prisoners of war. They may have information on the enemy’s strategy and divulging that info could save many lives. There is no emergency. Can I justify torturing my prisoners of war in order to save the lives of my own? Personally, no. That not only will that open a whole new can of worms, I personally believe actions such as these not only diminish the individual who perpetrates them, but the system and cause they are fighting for. There is a plethora of other reasons not to do this including that a man will tell you anything to make you stop torturing him, so it puts the quality of information in question. There’s more, but the important is that the end does not justify the means in this case.

I have prisoners. One of my cities is being held hostage by the enemy and they are killing civilians by the hour. Intel shows that these prisoners may have info valuable information that may help my side liquidate the enemy. I would consider torture as an option in this case. In my opinion, if there is the slightest chance that the killing of my people can be stopped by info obtained from giving a member of the enemy a bad day or two, fuck it. The choice is easy.

Depends on the circumstances, but people often just look at the end to judge because it’s too hard to see the behind-the-scene.

Without a moral sense, the end will always justify the means.

Generally, no.

A cliche is an overused phrase or opinion that often betrays a lack of original thought. But it is also something that is often true.

So my answer to this question is yes and no. Depends strictly on the particular end and particular means.

Sometimes.

Unanswerable without context. It’s a type of consideration, not something that always has the same answer, unless you constrain it somehow.

For example, in a legal context, where you define justification in a way that precludes breaking the law, then you might be able to prove within a system of constraints that no, it’s impossible to ever justify, but that’s limiting the answer to be practically self-defining.

If on the other hand, still in a legal context, you say that violations of the law merely have the prescribed legal consequence and social consequences, then the answer would be yes for any case where whatever is gained outweighs the consequences, according to whatever value system you choose. e.g. it might be worth exceeding the speed limit in a safe way, to get a patient in need to a hospital quickly.

Only in video games.

@RedDeerGuy1 Haha good answer

Separating means and ends is not so simple. Nothing is set in stone, to quote another cliche. There is always the danger of having the means corrupt the ends.