The ends justify the means?
I'm curious to think what people think of this dilemma. I'll post my true intent, related to current affairs, after I get a reasonable number of votes. For now, I'll let you all interpret the question as you see it.
There are only two options because I believe there can be logically only two options to such a fundamental question. There is no "depends" choice because ones' beliefs cannot be logically consistent to such fundamental questions if they are situational. A "depends" choice means one does not logically consider options when faced with such a dilemma, but resorts to other illogical justifications situationally to either justify or repudiate such actions. In short, logically, there is no grey area to such fundamental choices without being a hypocrite. There's a reason Dante put those who could not make choices and choose sides in Hell.
An example: A cop who knows another person is guilty of a heinous murder (we'll assume he's correct) plants evidence sufficient to convict. The guily person would be sure to go free and murder again without the additional evidence.
Another example: A mad scientist who wants to make a Utopia decides to kill everyone on this planet except a select few followers.
There are only two options because I believe there can be logically only two options to such a fundamental question. There is no "depends" choice because ones' beliefs cannot be logically consistent to such fundamental questions if they are situational. A "depends" choice means one does not logically consider options when faced with such a dilemma, but resorts to other illogical justifications situationally to either justify or repudiate such actions. In short, logically, there is no grey area to such fundamental choices without being a hypocrite. There's a reason Dante put those who could not make choices and choose sides in Hell.
An example: A cop who knows another person is guilty of a heinous murder (we'll assume he's correct) plants evidence sufficient to convict. The guily person would be sure to go free and murder again without the additional evidence.
Another example: A mad scientist who wants to make a Utopia decides to kill everyone on this planet except a select few followers.
Comments
What if I were to start a poll asking "For murder" or "Against murder"? It's easy to say that you're against murder but what if you have to kill someone in self defense to save your own life, or perhaps the lives of many other people? There IS a gray area in that situation, just as there's a gray area in yours. I think YOU are the hypocrite for insisting we choose one or the other when I am quite sure you would be as indecisive as any of us if actually faced with such a difficult decision involving the ends justifying the means.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
How can you insist that you have to choose "Yes" or "No"? I don't think we make decisions based on a precise, logical philosophy. People make decisions based on how they feel.
What if I were to start a poll asking "For murder" or "Against murder"? It's easy to say that you're against murder but what if you have to kill someone in self defense to save your own life, or perhaps the lives of many other people? There IS a gray area in that situation, just as there's a gray area in yours. I think YOU are the hypocrite for insisting we choose one or the other when I am quite sure you would be as indecisive as any of us if actually faced with such a difficult decision involving the ends justifying the means.
Luca, yes people make decisions on how they feel but feelings aren't always logically correct. That's why most people are hypocrits. Logic can be quantitatively expressed--as mathmaticians say, there is only one truth and that is math. John Nash's game theory is an example of logic in interactions. The whole Spock thing on Star Trek wasn't some gag with a guy with pointed ears. Ditto with the android without feelings.
I am against killing and would not kill in self defense or to save others. I also assure you, I am never indecisive, but you do not have to believe me. It's irrelevant. You just engauged in what logically would be considered a classic ad hominem attack. Your entire point is logically invalid.
But then again. Many students of philosophy doesn´t realise that when they center their focus on something like logic they tend to forget people aren´t logic machines. I´ve had to deal with my part of them in Habermas classes at uni. They are always trying to find logic holes in his arguments while we (sociologists) tend to use his work as a starting point and critisize his work if nessesary because its not applicaple to the world we see.
I am against killing and would not kill in self defense or to save oth
Well I have to believe you on that if you say so. But most people who doesn´t think the end justifies the means in any way would want to (but not always be able to) kill a person, if that was the only way they could stop him/her from destroying something very precious to him/her (a G5/a loved one/the world). Thats where philosophy ends and the social sciences begin, decitions in a social setting. You are trying to frame a social question in philosophy and that means you are asking the wrong question (or at least one where you will never get an adequate answer)
Utter crap.
Hypocrite = The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
If I tell you right now that the ends sometimes justify the means, I'm not being a hypocrite because I'm professing a belief that I hold. You are 100% wrong when you say that people who can't give a distinctive yes or no answer are hypocrites. In fact, the act of saying that makes you a hypocrite yourself. If not a hypocrite, then a jerk.
What if you knew some guy was going to kill three people if you didn't kill him first? Wouldn't it be the wrong decision to let him go because it would result in the deaths of three people rather than one? Or do the numbers of people not matter as long as you can pretend that you're morally clean? What about the old dilemma raised in the Spiderman movie (for lack of a better example)? On the one hand, save someone you love, on the other hand, save a group of strangers. Choose one or the other. The only logical conclusion you can come to is that you should save the group of people because there are more of them, but even so you've still allowed the death of someone else!
To quote Anders, "this poll is [mindfvckingly obnoxious] crap."
Originally posted by Existence
I'll post my true intent, related to current affairs, after I get a reasonable number of votes. For now, I'll let you all interpret the question as you see it.
Ah, I get it. That way you can lure us all into voting one way or another, no room to move, and then present us with an example and say "HAH! See, you're all a bunch of heartless sons of bitches!" while dancing as we all wish for you to die on the spot.
We'll see what happens but I have a feeling you're not going to get much of a response out of this. You're not getting a vote out of me, that's for sure.
It's kind of like asking "Do you like vegetables? Yes or no." It depends. I like many kinds of vegetables, especially beets, broccoli, onions, tomatoes, and bell peppers, and especially if they're cooked just right. Other kinds I don't like at all, like rutabaga, eggplant, celery, and anything that's cooked really badly. How am I supposed to know whether the ends justify the means or not without knowing the ends and the means? I can't know whether or not I like a vegetable without trying it.
I will not kill by purpose one innocent people in order to save 1000, but i will kill him in order to save humankind, because if the humanity vanish all humans philosophical principles will die anyway.
Absolute are abstractions, and do not suit with reality. Some philosophers tend to brain masturbation, and are absolutely in their own virtual conceptual world. A philosophy worth nothing if it's not in adequation with real life.
Originally posted by bunge
Means justify the ends, not the other way around.
No. Life is never that simple. Neither form of that phrase is the be all and end all.
Originally posted by Existence
I'm curious to think what people think of this dilemma. I'll post my true intent, related to current affairs, after I get a reasonable number of votes. For now, I'll let you all interpret the question as you see it.
There are only two options because I believe there can be logically only two options to such a fundamental question. There is no "depends" choice because ones' beliefs cannot be logically consistent to such fundamental questions if they are situational. A "depends" choice means one does not logically consider options when faced with such a dilemma, but resorts to other illogical justifications situationally to either justify or repudiate such actions. In short, logically, there is no grey area to such fundamental choices without being a hypocrite.
1) 'Beliefs' are not logical in the first place. They are what you *believe*, not what you deduce from facts.
2) Situational logic *takes into account the facts at that time*. Any other route is simply *IL*logical, since it ignores the current facts and instead insists on *BELIEF* to be imposed on the current reality.
3) 'Depends' is the only logical choice, and requires no illogic to justify it. Rather, a fundamental YES or NO, regardless of the facts at the decision point is completely and utterly illogical and requires belief, faith, and a level of hubris that indicates a low ability to think rationally.
In short: you've got it backwards, bub.
Originally posted by BR
No. Life is never that simple. Neither form of that phrase is the be all and end all.
Thanks almighty one, but I believe everyone here already knows that. If I'm playing the odds, I'll stick with my gameplan.
Maybe I'm totally off with this. I just thought it was a different way of looking at it, but it is kind of confusing.
If you have ideals, you have to exercise them. When people don't exercise their ideals, stuff like the EU happens. (Oh man, sorry, I tried to hold it back)
I say no, the ends do not justify the means. 99% of the time, using injust means is part of a shortcut. A little more thought will provide a just solution. Then 1% of the time, you simply have to honor your ideals (presuming your ideals say "no") and try, try again.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Luca, yes people make decisions on how they feel but feelings aren't always logically correct. That's why most people are hypocrits.
Only if they believe that logic is the only factor that should govern their decisions.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Not crap Anders, it's just a decision you don't want to make so you put it off and make excuses.
No. Its because the world outside formal logic have taught me that the question Existence ask is utter crap in grasping whats going on in peoples heads.
One example from my own research. 50% of all people will say that you have to obey the law and there is no excuse for not doing so. Yet 90% will say you can cross the street at red light when there is noone near you, its okay to fiddle with the taxes, unlocked bikes are fair game and/or something else. Every decitions we take is situated, not just derived from a moral or philosophical POV.
another example is from my own experience. I have worked with homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes and heavy mentally ill people at the street level here in Copenhagen and once in a while things got violent. I see it as my principle job to protect those who are attacked and always tried to go inbetween the attacker and the attacked. Us who are doing this work are highly respected and by far most times we are able to stabilize the situation enough for people to calm down and very seldom are any of the workers are hurt. I have always done "the right thing" but there have been situations where I have hesitated enough to know I might not have done my part.
In real life situations your principles are challenged and if you have tried this you know that formal logic doesn´t tell us half the story.
Originally posted by BR
To paraphrase Robert Nozick, why must philosophers insist on taking life and cramming it into a rigid box? Why must everything fit nicely? Why can't we leave all the things in life exactly where they are and say it is what it is?
To quote Anders, "this poll is [mindfvckingly obnoxious] crap."
I prefer the term "Mega"-crap. Want me to use it in a sentence? This poll is Mega-crap.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I think bunge kind of has a point but I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it correctly. Saying that the means justify the ends is an interesting way of looking at it because it agrees chronologically with what a person thinks throughout the course of a decision. You do something and then try to make sure that what you did has the desired result. In other words, the means of getting somewhere determines how well you achieved the end result. If a police officer uses illegal means to prove the guilt of a criminal he knows to be guilty, then he better make sure that whatever he did that was illegal is compensated for by the end result.
Maybe I'm totally off with this. I just thought it was a different way of looking at it, but it is kind of confusing.
Personally, I don't worry about the ends. That is, if I have to make a decision I make sure I choose wisely. Ultimately if the results of my choice are bad, it's a result of consequence. I don't look at how to end up with a positive, but how to make a choice that's a positive.
So, the cop wouldn't ever make a choice that captured a criminal if he had to break the law to catch that criminal. I would let the criminal get away with it before I ever broke a law to catch him or her.
This isn't how people normally think. Usually people decide what they want and figure out a method of achieving their goal. That's selfish crap as far as I'm concerned. I'll make a choice that hurts me if it's the right choice to make. That is, if I find a wallet on the street I'll give it back to the person without taking all the cash first.