JesusofChaos™ Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 Does the ends justify the means? Debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 No, the means justifiy the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sick4u Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 Static hit it right. Essentially speaking, Determinism. =/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bury the year Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 No. Deontology > Teleology. Does killing over 6 million people justify the goal of making a perfect world? Hitler thought so. Look where he is in our collective psyche now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Altair Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 ^Agreed. It's when your faced with a situation where you do the right thing and get in trouble or rescue yourself on behalf of someone's suffering. Bad example but it's a very common case. "Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will." - Kant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Does the ends justify the means? Debate. No. If your end is to get a 100 on a test, and your means is cheating, than no. If your end is to win a war, and your means is to kill everyone in the country, than no. If your end is to win a competition, and your means is to bribe, than no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
「tea.leaf」 Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Static hit it right. Essentially speaking' date=' Determinism. =/.[/quote'] HELL YEAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kale Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 basically this is the whole point of a debate topic for this month that i have.. and i have found several things. You cannot determine if the end result will be good based off an action, or intent. You may intend to do good, and you may do good to reach what you intend, but you still may end up with a bad result. EX: You want to pass a test, as suggested in an above post, so you study your hardest and you dont cheat, and what might you get? there is always that possibility of failing. But you can not excuse any harm that you have committed with the fact that good came from it. The mere fact that you did something bad to begin with, EX: cheating, is bad enough. so what if you ended up passing? do the ends justify the means? hell no. never. with that excuse you can do just about anything until you get to that point where something good comes of it, you can just continue your killing / torturing / whatev because you are intending to get something good out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Welche Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 This is a hard question. •Is it worth killing 1 person to save 2 people? Yes. •Is it worth stealing some thing with the intention to give it back so that nobody else can? Yes. •Is it right to punch somebody to save the world? Yes. On the other hand...•Is it right to kill somebody who is trying to steal? NO.The question matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Um, depends on what the means are. If I made a scale where 1 side had the means, and the other side had the ends, and the scale judged on goodness of action, the ends should be equal or gooder then the means. Always. Hope you understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 No' date=' the means justifiy the end.[/quote'] You hurt my brain. :( And you beat me too it. :P Static is right on this one. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 •Is it worth killing 1 person to save 2 people? Yes. Depends, ultimately. I'm not trying to argue the price of a human life, but surely a doctor who helps people everyday with a loving wife and two kids is a more important member to society as well as his family then two random bums on the street who jump people for booze money and have syphilis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Welche Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 •Is it worth killing 1 person to save 2 people? Yes. Depends' date=' ultimately. I'm not trying to argue the price of a human life, but surely a doctor who helps people everyday with a loving wife and two kids is a more important member to society as well as his family then two random bums on the street who jump people for booze money and have syphilis.[/quote']You are right. Different members of society have different values to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos_demon Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 I'm afraid that I must agree with the statement. Who r we to judge weather something is right or wrong. Ask yourself " If there was no consequence, how far would you go to get the thing you want the most." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Um' date=' depends on what the means are. If I made a scale where 1 side had the means, and the other side had the ends, and the scale judged on goodness of action, the ends should be equal or gooder then the means. Always. Hope you understood.[/quote'] First of all, if it depends on what the means are, then the ends do not justify the means. Second of all, you've constructed your scale improperly; creating a utopia (which is good) is obviously "gooder" than killing six million people (which is not good), so according to your scale, Hitler was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodrun Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 The means could justify the end, but what action justifies the means? Temptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Altair Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 This is a hard question. •Is it worth killing 1 person to save 2 people? Yes. No. And no, Different members of society DO NOT have different values. Everyone's equal and you can't judge anybody based on the ultimate fact that he/she is higher then you on some imaginary scale you've set yourself to differentiate yourself from other members of the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos_demon Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 This is a hard question. •Is it worth killing 1 person to save 2 people? Yes. No. And no' date=' Different members of society DO NOT have different values. Everyone's equal and you can't judge anybody based on the ultimate fact that he/she is higher then you on some imaginary scale you've set yourself to differentiate yourself from other members of the society.[/quote'] Imaginary? Your Mother/Father, Siblings, Girlfriend/Boyfriend not important to u? Placing importance on someones life shows care and love. Whether you would sacrifice someone to save another depends on the importance of the person needing rescue. I have hurt people who have hurt my friends, does that make me ignorant? or caring? Ignorances is not being true to the people u care about to not be willing to sacrifice for them. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Altair Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 This is a hard question. •Is it worth killing 1 person to save 2 people? Yes. No. And no' date=' Different members of society DO NOT have different values. Everyone's equal and you can't judge anybody based on the ultimate fact that he/she is higher then you on some imaginary scale you've set yourself to differentiate yourself from other members of the society.[/quote'] Imaginary? Your Mother/Father, Siblings, Girlfriend/Boyfriend not important to u? Placing importance on someones life shows care and love. Whether you would sacrifice someone to save another depends on the importance of the person needing rescue. I have hurt people who have hurt my friends, does that make me ignorant? or caring? Ignorances is not being true to the people u care about to not be willing to sacrifice for them. That is all. It's "you" not "u". And YOU are no God to chose who is better then who. You may like someone for various reasons but to give them importance over somebody else based on such biased is just dumb. Oh and hurting people who hurt your friends just because they're your friends is also dumb, you ignore the facts and reasons because of your emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos_demon Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 This is a hard question. •Is it worth killing 1 person to save 2 people? Yes. No. And no' date=' Different members of society DO NOT have different values. Everyone's equal and you can't judge anybody based on the ultimate fact that he/she is higher then you on some imaginary scale you've set yourself to differentiate yourself from other members of the society.[/quote'] Imaginary? Your Mother/Father, Siblings, Girlfriend/Boyfriend not important to u? Placing importance on someones life shows care and love. Whether you would sacrifice someone to save another depends on the importance of the person needing rescue. I have hurt people who have hurt my friends, does that make me ignorant? or caring? Ignorances is not being true to the people u care about to not be willing to sacrifice for them. That is all. It's "you" not "u". And YOU are no God to chose who is better then who. You may like someone for various reasons but to give them importance over somebody else based on such biased is just dumb. Oh and hurting people who hurt your friends just because they're your friends is also dumb, you ignore the facts and reasons because of your emotions. I'm afraid a soulless heart has an early end. No YOU are the dumb one. If your going to add a title of "god" here then think, who gave us the ability to chose huh? who gave us the RIGHT to put things above others in our hearts? Its that god of yours. And if choosing if someone is important to us something that should be left to god, then consider us "gods" no consider us better than "gods." You forget he is perfect but our imperfections make us better than him. We can get better even if we fall short sometimes, gods are static and we are forever improving, and thats what gives us the ability to put one person above the rest, our ability to choose, to do whatever we want no matter what someone says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 This is a hard question. •Is it worth killing 1 person to save 2 people? Yes. No. And no' date=' Different members of society DO NOT have different values. Everyone's equal and you can't judge anybody based on the ultimate fact that he/she is higher then you on some imaginary scale you've set yourself to differentiate yourself from other members of the society.[/quote'] While normally, I agree with your view on the equality of all humans in their pursuit of the furthering of our race, I think you're wrong here. Consider, a doctor provides a continuous benefit to the people around him. While, inherently, someone who is a doctor is no more valuable than someone who is a druggie, they have varying impacts on society. That doctor is far more likely to save lives in the future (or at least increase the standard of living of some) than is the street bum. Therefore, the doctor provides a greater benefit. My point is, though the doctor is no more valuable as a person, his existence will likely provide greater benefits to the furthering of our race. Therefore, do not sacrifice the doctor to save the bums. However, neither should you necessarily sacrifice the bums to save the doctor. The possible benefits the doctor could provide do not outweigh the benefits of the bums significantly, and certainly, enough to justify such an action. However, to cite the common example, if I was given the chance to go back in time and kill Hitler before he started World War 2, I would certainly do it. The ends (the preventing of world-wide catastrophe, and the saving of millions of lives) are significant enough, and certain enough, to outweigh the means. (The calculated cessation of another's life, and therefore the compromise of my moral principles.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusofChaos™ Posted November 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Yes Existentism states that anyone can choose to be whatever they want at any time. So those bums could turn and choose to become doctors etc. to benefit the society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.