2
   

Ends or Means?

Forums: Philosophy, Ethics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Ray
 
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 09:38 pm
You've all heard this one before.

Does the end justify the mean?

I think not.
If we are to look at our actions one way: Our action are causes which affects later causes which in turn have effects, which become causes...
Thus, the end can not be calculated. It might cause good things in the future, yet it might cause bad things for the future. How are we to know what overall effect it will bring? We can't.

The end matter, but the means also matter too.

I think that the means matter more than the end. Anyone who agrees with me please share your views so we can build this thing up...

Anyways, I can also see that one could also argue that the mean also aim towards some end. That
1) Noone must be sacrificed
2) The good will be preserved
3) No one takes precedence over others

This is the end of which we must also note.
But I still wouldn't call means an aim toward an end. It is something else.
Means are ways to achieve an end.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 5,330 • Replies: 69
No top replies

 
val
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 05:16 am
Re: Ends or Means?
Ray, I dont agree with you. At short notice you can have a very adequate representation of the end.
There is not an unique answer to the question. Sometimes ends justify the means, sometimes they dont. It all depends of the end you want to reach and the means you apply.
I believe that the decision of many nations to enter the war against nazi Germany is an example of an end that justifies the means (the inevitable cruelty of war).
Communists believed that in order to reach a glorious future of peace and freedom, concentration camps, mass murder, were necessary. That is for me a case where means are not justified by the end. The same goes to Hiroxima bomb. When means go beyond certain limits there is nothing to justify them.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 12:19 pm
I'm with Val. I'd say the ends justify the means...unless the means are simply horrific. It's really a question of whether your aim is worth the means you use to achieve it. If, say, I hated President Bush, and I really didn't want him to be president, I could, hypothetically, kill him. But the taking of a life would by far outstrip the 'good' I believed myself to be doing by keeping him from President.
0 Replies
 
MichaelAllen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2004 11:03 pm
I think it was an interesting angle that the end never actually occurs, therefore there is no way to measure whether the means could justify it. I believe that the means are justified at times and that they are not at others times based on what they intended to end and by what measures were taken. But, it is true that any action causes a reaction and way beyond the intended end has been met, there are ramifications that go on for miles and other ends result. This is the bite I'm taking.

Edward Lorenzo (possibly misspelled) - Can the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas? (possibly misquoted) You get the point. The flapping of a butterfly's wings is to cause flight for the butterfly. But way beyond the intended end, is another possible cause of chaos somewhere else on earth.

When Jim Carey pulled the moon closer to Jennifer Aniston's apartment in Bruce Almighty, it caused chaos throughout the earth. Lunar activity caused flooding where boats ended up in trees. Not a real example I know, but imagine the butterfly effect being true. If so, that would mean that I could sneeze tomorrow and cause the Amazon river to run dry. I feel so much pressure on me right now it is unbelievable.

My answer to that puzzling question is whether the intended end was met and none other should enter the calculation. Ends beyond the original intent are not part of the equation. If the means is not an overboard solution to our goal, then they are justified. But, that's the actual question. Does the end justify the means? It isn't a philosophical question to be pondered really, it's the question that helps people decide what actions to take.

The plan is put into place and then the question lingers, is our goal worth the sacrifice we are willing to make? If not, we calibrate our means to fit the desired end.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 04:03 am
Re: Ends or Means?
Ray
There is another question I didn't mention in my previous reply: sometimes means become the ends.
See the example of Soviet Union. At first the dictatorship was conceived as a mean to reach a society with no classes. Then it was a mean to fight the nazy invasion. And after the war it was the structure of a nation, nothing else. Comunism was nothing but a dream, an utopic dream. The end had been reached in a powerful and imperialist nation. If someone claimed in the former Soviet Union that steps should be made in order to assure the transition from a State dictatorship to a comunist society he would be arrested and "brainwashed" (if not kiled).
As Taliesin said, we must be very, very careful with the means we use to reach an end.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:28 am
Re: Ends or Means?
Ray wrote:
I think that the means matter more than the end. Anyone who agrees with me please share your views so we can build this thing up...

What exactly do you mean by "matter?" Matter in terms of morality? Or utility? Or something else?

Ray wrote:
Anyways, I can also see that one could also argue that the mean also aim towards some end. That
1) Noone must be sacrificed
2) The good will be preserved
3) No one takes precedence over others

Are these ethical absolutes?

Ray wrote:
But I still wouldn't call means an aim toward an end. It is something else.
Means are ways to achieve an end.

Undoubtedly.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 10:55 am
Joe: I think he meant that even if you save a life, if you had to end two lives to save one, it's not worth it. Sooo...I'd say he meant it morally. However, I'm not Ray. Was I right?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:08 am
I do not think it is the end then justifies the means, but rather, the end predicted to the best of our abilities. we can never foretell all of the actual results...so we must act based on what we think will happen to the best of our judgement. if one does something thinking that it will produce a good effect, than their action was justified. the true result does not effect whether or not the action was justified.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:22 pm
Quote:
There is not an unique answer to the question. Sometimes ends justify the means, sometimes they dont. It all depends of the end you want to reach and the means you apply.


Agreed.

But what criteria makes ends justify means and means to not be justified by the end?

Quote:
What exactly do you mean by "matter?" Matter in terms of morality? Or utility? Or something else?

Hmm, I was really saying that the means are more important than the end. It does matter in terms of morality, but not utility.

I don't like Utilitarianism. It can easily be turned into a philosophy of oppression.

Quote:
I think he meant that even if you save a life, if you had to end two lives to save one, it's not worth it. Sooo...I'd say he meant it morally. However, I'm not Ray. Was I right?

Yeah.

My take on it: If the butterfly effect, as MichaelAllen mentioned, apply to our action, then there is a possibility that all the little things we do in life would in turn cause a horrific event to happen in the future. Now, if say a person who can calculate or see the future, no matter how unlikely it is, sees that if say two persons were to continue existing, then the very fact of their existance would lead to certain number of deaths in the future, should he intervene? No, he should not. The end doesn't necessarily justify the means, and if everyone were to do that then there would be no life in this universe.

Quote:
I do not think it is the end then justifies the means, but rather, the end predicted to the best of our abilities. we can never foretell all of the actual results...so we must act based on what we think will happen to the best of our judgement. if one does something thinking that it will produce a good effect, than their action was justified. the true result does not effect whether or not the action was justified.


Interesting point. I do think though that just because we 'think' that the action will result in good, it does not mean that the action is justified. The person could very well be mistaken anyways.

So you see my stance on this. The end does not necessarily justify the means. Any means that deprives any rational conscious being of life is to me immoral and can not be justified by the end. Of course I see that there are loopholes in this comment, and moral dillemas to deal with, but that is my stance, at least, for now...
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 06:54 am
Ray
The only criteria I know is an ethic or moral one (of course there is also the question of adequation between the means and the end).
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:46 am
Ray wrote:
Hmm, I was really saying that the means are more important than the end. It does matter in terms of morality, but not utility.

If this is a question of morality, then I'm not sure how you can say that the means are more important than the end unless you set up a system of morality that privileges means over ends.

Let's explore this further by means of a hypothetical. Theo wants to give his wife a diamond necklace. Unfortunately, Theo is very poor, so he steals the necklace, which he then presents to his wife as a gift. The end (giving a gift to his wife) is something that we would consider moral (or, at least, morally neutral), in that we consider the act of giving gifts to be "good" or "right." On the other hand, we consider the means by which Theo here has employed toward this end to be immoral, in that we consider theft to be "bad" or "wrong." So far so good.

Now, how are we to determine if the means are more important than the end? One could argue that it is only through means that one can reach an end, and so "no means --> no end." That's quite true, but then the end is the sole motivation for employing the means, so it is equally true that "no end --> no means." In other words, if Theo had no desire to give a gift to his wife, then he would have had no reason to steal the necklace. In this case, it is therefore clear that the end and the means are both necessary conditions for each other, and so both are equally important.

Let us, however, take a more problematic example. Suppose Sam is a soldier. His nation has declared war on an enemy and Sam kills an enemy soldier in combat. All things being equal, we typically consider winning a war to be a moral end, in that we consider winning wars (in particular, "just" wars) to be "good" or "right." Killing people, however, is typically considered to be immoral, in that we consider killing to be "bad" or "wrong." It seems, however, that the moral end in this case can only be achieved through immoral means; wars can only be won by killing people. How then do we justify Sam's killing of another human being? In this case, is it true that the end really does justify the means?

I'll leave those questions for the rest of you to ponder.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:50 am
"importance" is a relative term. the importance of something must be measured relative to a goal. therefore a single importance cannot be assigned to any individual action, but must be assigned to an action-goal pair. since no goal has been clearly defined for importance, Ray will need to specify the goal which he is using to measure importance, or the point is moot.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:29 am
Stuh: you bring up an interesting sub-point: Is it intent or outcome that matters? If someone meant to save a life and ended up saving it, I'd say that was worthy, even though he failed. But if someone tried to kill a man and ended up saving one, that would be wrong. So, my view leans more towards intent than outcome, though both are important...I'd say a 60%-40% split.
0 Replies
 
blueSky
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 02:54 pm
I feel morality is the end that involves benefit of many, sometimes even at the cost of few as in a just war. But many should include lives of all humans, well being of all nations and even creatures and the environment as a whole. An action that springs from 'The whole creation is one organism" is truly moral. Anything lesser than that is a clever rationalization of selfish and narrow-minded motives.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 08:35 pm
Bluesky: Interesting. But what if there was someone trying to kill a guy, and the only way you could stop him was to kill him? Would the end of the guy not dying make up for you killing the gunman? I'd say yes, but I'd still feel like crap about it.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:05 pm
Taliesin, I assume you're referring to my original reply, and not the most recent one?

stuh505 wrote:
I do not think it is the end then justifies the means, but rather, the end predicted to the best of our abilities. we can never foretell all of the actual results...so we must act based on what we think will happen to the best of our judgement. if one does something thinking that it will produce a good effect, than their action was justified. the true result does not effect whether or not the action was justified.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Bluesky: Interesting. But what if there was someone trying to kill a guy, and the only way you could stop him was to kill him? Would the end of the guy not dying make up for you killing the gunman? I'd say yes, but I'd still feel like crap about it.


You're missing the point still. "would it make up for"....you haven't specified what the terms are for your measurement.

People will continue to argue in circles because everyone here is measuring "importance" and "quality" by different standards.

So what you are all really debating is actually your opinion on the definition of these words, although th way you go about it will never get that point across.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:05 pm
Taliesin, I assume you're referring to my original reply, and not the most recent one?

stuh505 wrote:
I do not think it is the end then justifies the means, but rather, the end predicted to the best of our abilities. we can never foretell all of the actual results...so we must act based on what we think will happen to the best of our judgement. if one does something thinking that it will produce a good effect, than their action was justified. the true result does not effect whether or not the action was justified.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Bluesky: Interesting. But what if there was someone trying to kill a guy, and the only way you could stop him was to kill him? Would the end of the guy not dying make up for you killing the gunman? I'd say yes, but I'd still feel like crap about it.


You're missing the point still. "would it make up for"....you haven't specified what the terms are for your measurement.

People will continue to argue in circles because everyone here is measuring "importance" and "quality" by different standards.

So what you are all really debating is actually your opinion on the definition of these words, although th way you go about it will never get that point across.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:05 pm
Taliesin, I assume you're referring to my original reply, and not the most recent one?

stuh505 wrote:
I do not think it is the end then justifies the means, but rather, the end predicted to the best of our abilities. we can never foretell all of the actual results...so we must act based on what we think will happen to the best of our judgement. if one does something thinking that it will produce a good effect, than their action was justified. the true result does not effect whether or not the action was justified.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Bluesky: Interesting. But what if there was someone trying to kill a guy, and the only way you could stop him was to kill him? Would the end of the guy not dying make up for you killing the gunman? I'd say yes, but I'd still feel like crap about it.


You're missing the point still. "would it make up for"....you haven't specified what the terms are for your measurement.

People will continue to argue in circles because everyone here is measuring "importance" and "quality" by different standards.

So what you are all really debating is actually your opinion on the definition of these words, although th way you go about it will never get that point across.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:06 pm
Taliesin, I assume you're referring to my original reply, and not the most recent one?

stuh505 wrote:
I do not think it is the end then justifies the means, but rather, the end predicted to the best of our abilities. we can never foretell all of the actual results...so we must act based on what we think will happen to the best of our judgement. if one does something thinking that it will produce a good effect, than their action was justified. the true result does not effect whether or not the action was justified.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Bluesky: Interesting. But what if there was someone trying to kill a guy, and the only way you could stop him was to kill him? Would the end of the guy not dying make up for you killing the gunman? I'd say yes, but I'd still feel like crap about it.


You're missing the point still. "would it make up for"....you haven't specified what the terms are for your measurement.

People will continue to argue in circles because everyone here is measuring "importance" and "quality" by different standards.

So what you are all really debating is actually your opinion on the definition of these words, although th way you go about it will never get that point across.

EDIT -- sorry aout those silly double posts..
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 06:15 am
Joe
I think there is only one justification in your example. Sam kills the enemy soldier in combat, because he is protecting his own life.
And an war victory has nothing to do with moral.
In our choices we find ourselves very often between different moral obligations.
I'll give you the known example from Plato: should we pay the money that someone lended to us? Yes. But if you know that the money you are going to pay, will be used to contract a killer to kill someone? Then, there are two moral values in confront: the obligation of paying the loan and the obligation of protect human life. The last is more important than the first. In this case, you should not pay, at least until you are sure that the money will not be used to kill someone.
So, the problem is to define something like a hierarchy of values. And human life comes first.

Your example is a little different. Your soldier has to decide between his own life and the life of the enemy soldier. In this particular case one human life will be destroyed. I think - and ONLY in this particular case - the survey instinct is not a bad criteria in order to make a decision.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ends or Means?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 02:06:41
▲ ▼