Simple Question.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:33 pm

Does the end justify the means, or the means justify the end?

I believe that the means justifies the ends.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:06 pm

Borommakot wrote:I believe that the means justifies the ends.

Why?

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:51 am

If a man killed someone by smiling at them, then he could hardly be blamed for not knowing that the man would die if someone smiled at him. The means, being normally friendly and harmless justifies the end, the man dying. The man who killed him should not be held accountable.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:26 pm

Sounds reasonable to me.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:50 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:Sounds reasonable to me.

but on the other hand if we protected a child by killing an abusive parent it would be good ends but not good means... right?

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:33 pm

Sounds reasonable to me. :-)

LooF · Post by **LooF** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:57 pm

result or attempt

justice serves which?

situation and your own ethics determine this

Cathy Preston · Post by **Cathy Preston** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:08 am

Borommakot wrote:If a man killed someone by smiling at them, then he could hardly be blamed for not knowing that the man would die if someone smiled at him. The means, being normally friendly and harmless justifies the end, the man dying. The man who killed him should not be held accountable.

This is silly, the end cannot be justified by the means, the means in and of themselves are either right or wrong, and has nothing to do with the end. If the man continues to smile at people and people continue dying .. is he justified in continuing this behaviour? In the same vein, the mean is never justified by the end.

Justification is a convenient term that is used by people who want to avoid reality.

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:21 am

Neither exists in a vacuum; the end (the actual end, not the intended one) is measured against the means. Which is what makes it so tricky because the actual end, at least in the human sphere, is not knowable beforehand. We do factor intent into the equation to satisfy our need to adjust for the unknowability of the future.

Borommakot · Post by **Borommakot** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:57 pm

I don't think that ends can justify the means, because

(snip)the actual end, at least in the human sphere, is not knowable beforehand

A person can't know for sure what the end will be, but they can be 100% about what they do right then, so they can't do something bad and then hope they get lucky and end up o.k.

Justification is a convenient term that is used by people who want to avoid reality.

I don't want it for myself, only my judge. (I'm not in trouble with the law, it's just a saying)

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:52 pm

Borommakot wrote: A person can't know for sure what the end will be, but they can be 100% about what they do right then, so they can't do something bad and then hope they get lucky and end up o.k.

What about the "lesser of evils" argument?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:47 am

Means and Ends are wholly contexual things and there is no formula.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:57 pm

Dan,

You and Kevin should do battle with wooden sticks.

Katy could supervise.

Leyla could cook dinner.

It'd be great.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:23 pm

Steven Coyle wrote:Dan,

You and Kevin should do battle with wooden sticks.

Katy could supervise.

Leyla could cook dinner.

It'd be great.

ooh! Wooden stick fights! I actually own some good inch thick sticks of rattan I can bring! They even look like swords! Hey I'm good at stick fighting! I got the winner!

*wonders vaguely what this is about*

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:47 pm

Yea, a stick fight as the means, to what end though?

Von Clausewitz said that war is politics by other means, therefore the end is always the primary consideration.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:47 pm

reedsch wrote: Von Clausewitz said that war is politics by other means, therefore the end is always the primary consideration.

Of course that could be read the opposite - therefore the means is the primary consideration because you have to question whether the end is worth thousands of lives, rather than a few hours shouting at eachother.

I'm not arguing in either direction, actually - my thought is that neither one "trumps" the other

Actually, I'm not entirely convinced either exists. The "ends" is the "means" to another "end"

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:37 am

reedsch wrote:Von Clausewitz said that war is politics by other means, therefore the end is always the primary consideration.

Isn't war the ultimate metaphor for the political process?

Is Clausewitz's conception beneficial to the political process? He's condoning the ethical treatment of politicians by the majority. War as justified justice. The promotion of politics for politics. Using his logic, I'm unable to see a clear connection between a means and an end.

However, the process of war might compel the political process to stand outside of itself, to look in on its own creation. It would depend on what "other means" Clausewitz's idealism is refering to. He has uprooted the underbelly of political idealism; but does the ideal justify itself, or merely promote its own indulgence ...

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:43 am

Katy wrote:
Steven Coyle wrote:Dan,

You and Kevin should do battle with wooden sticks.

Katy could supervise.

Leyla could cook dinner.

It'd be great.
ooh! Wooden stick fights! I actually own some good inch thick sticks of rattan I can bring! They even look like swords! Hey I'm good at stick fighting! I got the winner!

*wonders vaguely what this is about*

Just having some fun. :)

I'm bringing my bamboo!

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:01 am

Steven Coyle wrote:However, the process of war might compel the political process to stand outside of itself, to look in on its own creation. It would depend on what "other means" Clausewitz's idealism is refering to.

The first thing that comes to my mind is the military tactic known as "deflection".

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:12 am

Borommakot wrote:Does the end justify the means, or the means justify the end?

No.

pepper · Post by **pepper** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:25 am

[quote="DHodges"][quote="Borommakot"]Does the end justify the means, or the means justify the end?[/quote]
No.[/quote]

Are they mutually exclusive do you think? The means and the ends.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:36 am

I think the means should never become more important than the end.

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:09 pm

reedsch wrote:Neither exists in a vacuum; the end (the actual end, not the intended one) is measured against the means. Which is what makes it so tricky because the actual end, at least in the human sphere, is not knowable beforehand. We do factor intent into the equation to satisfy our need to adjust for the unknowability of the future.

I agree with you. If we have the ability to cause an effect, then our motive must be honorable regardless of the outcome. The intended end may not be the resultant outcome, therefore all will point back to the intent. The end should be the most important, but it is uncontrollable, therefore what is important is what you can effectively controlâ€¦yourself.

If you sold interests in a gas well where the end result was a dry hole, the issue that will determine whether you are guilty of fraud rides singularly on intent. Bringing in a productive gas well is important to those who entrusted their investment to you, but you can only control your own honestyâ€¦not nature.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:46 pm

There are a few ways to interpret "does the end justify the means or the means the end".....

1a

If
means = "method"
justify = "equal to highly probable causes for"
end = "goal"

then
the means justifies the end

1b

but if
justify = "makes ethical"
then
the end justifies the means

2.
If
means = "things"
justify = "makes sense of"
end = "Totality of all things"
then
the means justifies the end
and
the end justifies the means

There's one more, but it's just a spin on 1a, without the idea of use or purpose.

.

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:38 pm

Edit: Deleted because I meant to make it a new thread...it is under Situation Ethics Conundrum in Worldly Matters.

GENIUS FORUMS

Simple Question.

Simple Question.

Re: Simple Question.

Simple Answer

Re: Simple Answer

Situation Ethics Conundrum