Ends and Means: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Ends and Means » Ends and Means

Ends and Means
The ends justify the means.

Do ends justify means?
Yes, always or nearly always.	verta-vitae, Absolutely Relative, mikerpiker	3	33%
No, never or nearly never.	keda, unenlightened, Tad, HalcyonGlaze	4	44%
Undecided	Dr.Black, cygn	2	22%
Other		0	0%
9 votes

Ends and Means

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 125

Posted 04/25/08 - 11:40 AM: Subject: Ends and Means	#1
The pursuit of good, however we define it, allows for any means to be taken, so long as the end good outweighs the evil done in its pursuit. I will concede that whenever possible and convenient we should seek to mitigate any evil we do and maximize the good we gain. I will also concede that we should err on the side of doing no harm when there is uncertainty in the end results. When the moment is upon us though, when we see opportunity to promote great good, we should act quickly and seize opportunity. It is better to do a little evil from hasty action than allow a great good to slip away while committees and counsels seek to constrain our actions out of fear. Break eggs to make an omelet, steal to feed your children, kill to save lives, make war to stop a genocide. The ends justify the means.
_____________________ It is what it is.

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/25/08 - 02:28 PM:	#2
"I will concede that whenever possible and convenient we should seek to mitigate any evil we do and maximize the good we gain." Wouldn't these stipulations come to contradict each other? In the attempt to mitigate evil, we may also mitigate good, and in the attempt to maximize good, we may at times procure more evil than if we were to do nothing (which, of course, doing nothing is also a choice, for the Sartre fans, but these utilitarian ideals cannot lift moral responsibility by simply "doing nothing," which is a choice as much as any other is.)Now, when we attempt to seek the least evil and most good, whatever this choice may be, we conflict with your second rule: "I will also concede that we should err on the side of doing no harm when there is uncertainty in the end results." When is there EVER certainty in the end results? If there is such an uncertainty (and if we were to weigh the probability, there is ALWAYS an uncertainty based on the fact that it is beyond human cognition to account for EVERY possible effect,) then does it not make more sense to seek an alternate route? Due to this uncertainly, we must admit that we cannot predict the results, and are then forced to admit than any action is out of conjecture, blindness, and a flawed hypothesis of which we are aware. (And I realize that appealing to the influence of actions and the uncertainty of the effected contradicts Sartre's ideals of radical freedom/responsibility, as I mentioned above, but seeking the best results of an action is in itself an admittance that actions have effect- deterministic qualities- and hence the argument still applies. Also, I do not see the ideas of not choosing as a choice and a certain flavor or determinism to contradict each other.) Also, acting whenever "possible" is much different than acting whenever "convenient," though even if we are acting whenever convenience is possible, we are not following the aforementioned rule.

verta-vitae
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Location: A place so far away no one knows it exists
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 04/25/08 - 09:59 PM:	#3
Absolutely Relative wrote: The pursuit of good, however we define it, allows for any means to be taken, so long as the end good outweighs the evil done in its pursuit. I will concede that whenever possible and convenient we should seek to mitigate any evil we do and maximize the good we gain. I will also concede that we should err on the side of doing no harm when there is uncertainty in the end results. When the moment is upon us though, when we see opportunity to promote great good, we should act quickly and seize opportunity. It is better to do a little evil from hasty action than allow a great good to slip away while committees and counsels seek to constrain our actions out of fear. Break eggs to make an omelet, steal to feed your children, kill to save lives, make war to stop a genocide. The ends justify the means. Pitty we do not studdy latin and logic in our schools... As far as the good and evil, a quote comes to mind "There will come a time when we all will have to choose between what is right, and what is easy." -Dumbledor "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" For example: Its easy to walk away from situations that you will never see the people again, or just let offenses slide to ensure a good standerd in society. When everyone just choices the easy way and do not pay the consequences, the consequences fall on someone else. Hence the steal to feed your children ect... It doesnt mean that stealing to feed your children is wronge for, and another quote "To those who did what they knew to be wronge, so there may come a right" National Treasure. Sorry not sure of the exact phrase or person. P.S. Yes the ends justify the means, but it doesnt make it right.
_____________________ Life sucks eat a cookie

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Women’s Pay Key to Child Poverty

Posted 04/26/08 - 01:38 AM:	#4
I think it is wise to live your life with some clear principles, by which I mean acts you will not do no matter what the end to which the act would be a means. For example, murder is an act many people refuse to do no matter what. Then, while making choices without violating those basic principles, I think it is wise to try to achieve your remaining goals and values by using cost-benefit analysis, in which case you could say the means are worth the ends if they give you the best net profit according to your values. Basically, I recommend one live one's life by letting the means justify the ends when the means do not violate basic principles. But I do recommend one come up with some basic principles because cost-benefit analysis without principles can be dangerous. Namely. consider the risk of miscalculation when performing cost-benefit analysis and of changing values compared to the hopefully more well-calculated principles often based on more lasting values. I also believe it the people in society will be best off when they agree on basic social principles, which are usually called laws. (Of course, they needn't actually be written laws, in that murder would be treated relatively similarly whether it is officially outlawed by a centralized government or not.) These agreed social principles will generally prohibit certain behaviors as a means. For example, most societies outlaw murder regardless of the end. Even when there are exceptions to a principle, the exceptions can be contained in the principle (e.g. "No eating ice cream except when someone pays you money to do it.") Edited by Floyd on 04/26/08 - 01:45 AM
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/26/08 - 06:27 AM:	#5
"I think it is wise to live your life with some clear principles, by which I mean acts you will not do no matter what the end to which the act would be a means." While, sure, it may be wise to do so, this is similar to comparing Kant's Categorical Imperative (a universal- or "categorical"- command which all people must follow at all time, hence the absolutism of Kant's formalism) versus the more common hypothetical imperatives (normally "if... then..." statements which hold true situationally and are designed to elicit success in life, not ethical behavior.) It may very well be WISE to adopt imperatives such as "do not kill," though the question we need to ask is "is it ETHICAL (true, universal, consistent, virtuous, etc.)?" (Though, if by "wise" you refer to acting in a way which is most in accordance with probability, and in the case of "ends" and "means" the uncertainty of actions would lead us to the most certain action, or perhaps even that which has the least effect, as I've spoken of above, I understand your point. Once again, however, to argue for the ethical vitality of these choices would be very, very difficult.) "I recommend one live one's life by letting the means justify the ends when the means do not violate basic principles." Personally, I like this idea better, but in the attempt to mix consequentialist and formalist theories, we have conflicting foundational beliefs (i.e. actions do not matter and the "ends justify the means," or within actions lie the morality and we must judge based upon them.) Perhaps you do not care, and take into account both, but I will be the first to say (as an individual who has written on the line between the two and the possibility of applying "Rule Utilitarianism" in school) that once an intermediary is sought, application starts to push the line further and further toward the ends-and-means utilitarian doctrine. It is difficult to escape the consequences of actions by appealing to rules that can be ultimately broken if the consequences outweigh them, so one might as well be a consequentialist. "I also believe it the people in society will be best off when they agree on basic social principles, which are usually called laws. (Of course, they needn't actually be written laws, in that murder would be treated relatively similarly whether it is officially outlawed by a centralized government or not.) These agreed social principles will generally prohibit certain behaviors as a means." Ah, wouldn't this be wonderful? It is difficult, though, when a few disagree with the whole, and the whole feels the need to use force against the few... It's a rough equation. However, perhaps if we were all rationalists (being that emotions, cultural beliefs, authority, etc. all fluctuate from place to place and time to time, and have further problems with their determining abilities) we could hold that commonality and have the means for ethical ends, though we would open ourselves up for questions identifying the ethical from the rational, the effectiveness of rationality, flaws in logic, etc. Edited by Dr.Black on 04/26/08 - 06:35 AM

unenlightened
The Artistic Animal

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 932

Posted 04/26/08 - 09:15 AM:	#6
Absolutely Relative wrote: The ends justify the means. In fairytale land, the end is that they all live happily ever after, and to that end, any means may be justified, even filling the wolf's stomach with stones and throwing him in the lake. In this world, in the long run, we are all dead, and that cannot justify anything. There are no other ends than imagined ones, and only means are real.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 125

Posted 04/26/08 - 11:57 AM:	#7
I've never seen a pragmatic 'ends justify means' be accused of fairy tale land. Cold, heartless and soulless is the usual approach. Good juxtaposition. Clinging to principles is all well and good in a civilized society. We don't live in a civilized society. Not all of our laws are ethical, our government does not represent our wishes. I see with my own eyes commuters and consumers pass by people in distress because they want to 'mind their own business.' They see getting involved in a stranger's personal issue as too great a wrong to possibly save that stranger's life. In a society as depraved as ours, you have to get your hands dirty to do good. I see no problem with a cost-benefit analysis. Applied universally: If every action every person took had a net positive good, the world would be a better place. The next page is going to tell me "Your post has been posted, thanks." I love this language.
_____________________ It is what it is.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Women’s Pay Key to Child Poverty

Posted 04/26/08 - 04:18 PM:	#8
I think the main reason having some principles helps one live make more desirable decisions is that people cannot trust themselves to make accurate cost-benefit analysis. For example, consider the ex-alcoholic. He will generally adopt a very strict principle of never drinking alcohol. His addictive desire for alcohol and alcohol's usefulness in moderation would make it hard for him to decide whether or not the drawbacks of taking a drink of alcohol in any isolated situation is worth the consequences. So no matter how much he wants it in any given situation, he tries to stay true to the strict principle rather than justify it with a cost-benefit analysis. In a way, having principles is itself a long-term means to long-lasting ends. It helps us stop ourselves from making mistakes by adopting a simple, basic principle rather than leaving it only up to making a cost-benefit analysis in every given situation. Dr. Black wrote: "I recommend one live one's life by letting the means justify the ends when the means do not violate basic principles." Personally, I like this idea better[...] Well, I meant it as part of the first idea. I am not recommending a person only live by principles. Rather, I am recommending that a person make some basic principles which precede the use of a cost-benefit analysis. I have no concern over what is supposedly moral or ethical since I am an amoralist. My recommendations are meant to help people fulfill their own desires and goals.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/27/08 - 09:21 AM:	#9
"Well, I meant it as part of the first idea. I am not recommending a person only live by principles. Rather, I am recommending that a person make some basic principles which precede the use of a cost-benefit analysis." I see your point, Floyd, and I understand the sentiment behind it (assuming that humans can understand anything about one another ,) but, as I had written earlier, I do not see this as applicable. I mentioned that the line between consequentialism and non-consequentialism is a distinct one due to fundamental differences (one focusing solely on the means and the other solely on the ends,) and though it sounds viable and preferable to remain static somewhere inbetween, this is a position very difficult to maintain. Say, for instance, that you have a personal rule against killing (or lying, stealing, etc., and the entire forum knows where this analogy is going,) and therefore in NO circumstances will you kill. However, the death of a single terrorist will save millions, etc., etc., etc... Now, one may stringently adhere to the rule that they have set for themselves, and accordingly justify their lack of action due to this rule. However, you are also admitting that the ends may justify the means, and in this case, they may very well do so, and you are left with quite the dilemma. Perhaps, then, that "I will not kill" will be omitted from your list of impermissable actions, though, at this point, you might as well be back on the consequentialist crew- the justification of the means debate seems to constantly overwhelm this side of the argument, and you may very well find yourself with NO rules to hold. Being that you are an amoralist, perhaps you have no concern for this, but I simply wish to point out that drawing the line inbetween is a seemingly futile endeavor. Whether or not you believe in morality, the hypothetical command which you supply should hold true in some situations and be falsified in others (otherwise, this claim is simply "meaningless," as was the claim of hedonism by the sophists in Plato's Republic.) As for the heavenly point between consequentialists and non-consequentialists, perhaps the line is there and has yet to be drawn, but I can only imagine that the solution to this problem will arise from relativism (though, of course, there are flaws here as well,) a radical address of consequentialst/non-consequentialist theories (in which we will throw both ideas out and start anew,) or perhaps the other slew of beliefs, in which existentialism, nihilism, and absurdism are a few... Once again, I can certainly see your reason for providing a hypothetical guideline to people in hopes to elicit moral behavior (and, as you said, simple happiness,) but I do not, as of now, see this imperative being unfalsified in any situation, and therefore it cannot yield the results you seek (unless, once again, I have simply not found the answer, nor have I been provided with one. I fully admit that I may be mistaken, but will maintain this position until proven otherwise.) "I have no concern over what is supposedly moral or ethical since I am an amoralist. My recommendations are meant to help people fulfill their own desires and goals." Though I do not wish to stray far from the topic at hand, I am interested in your reasoning for claiming amoralism. Would you mind clarifying?

Tad
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/27/08 - 10:34 AM:	#10
The pursuit of good, however we define it, allows for any means to be taken, so long as the end good outweighs the evil done in its pursuit. How do we even begin to calculate if the "end good outweighs the evil done in its pursuit"? I will concede that whenever possible and convenient we should seek to mitigate any evil we do and maximize the good we gain. I will also concede that we should err on the side of doing no harm when there is uncertainty in the end results. When the moment is upon us though, when we see opportunity to promote great good, we should act quickly and seize opportunity. It is better to do a little evil from hasty action than allow a great good to slip away while committees and counsels seek to constrain our actions out of fear. What is there to concede? You've already stated that in your first paragraph that the pursuit of good should be supervened upon a maximizing principle. I don't see how "it is better to do a little evil from a hasty action than allow a great good to slip away". If I am given an opportunity to promote 'great good', and in the process I run down some pedestrians in my pursuit, then how I am going to justify the murder of these people? Is it justified on the very notion of 'uncertainty' that you denounce earlier? It seems that you have contradicted yourself by saying that "we should err on the side of doing no harm when there is uncertainty" but we ought to do a "little evil from hasty action than allow a great good to slip away". Doing a little bit of harm is not no harm. Edited by Tad on 04/27/08 - 10:56 AM
_____________________ Empty cages, not larger cages.

Tad
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/27/08 - 10:54 AM:	#11
Verta, You said, P.S. Yes the ends justify the means, but it doesnt make it right. This doesn't really make any sense. The author of the post is saying that the ends JUSTIFY (make RIGHT) the means. Your point boils down to a contradiction if words have any meaning at all: The ends justify the means, but it doesn't make it justifiable. Perhaps you have two notions of justification? You must. Edited by Tad on 04/27/08 - 10:58 AM
_____________________ Empty cages, not larger cages.