| Author |
 Topic  |
|
IceCream
= Quote Accumulator =
USA
1850 Posts |
 Posted - 03/31/2005 : 02:56:16
|
A really broad, general, philosophical/sociological question for you all:
Does the end justify the means? |
|
|
Elephant
- FB Fan -
Canada
240 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 02:59:35
|
Justified kind of sounds like my name.
HI - MY NAME IS JUSTIN.
P.S.
MY FAVOURITE COLOUR IS YELLOW, WHAT IS YOURS? |
Edited by - Elephant on 03/31/2005 03:00:29 |
 |
|
|
Monsieur
* Dog in the Sand *
France
1688 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 03:55:43
|
Read at least "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" by Kant.
Clearly, the end does not justify the means. Your action cannot be morally justified by its result, which you cannot fully understand, by the way.
Kant has been widely criticized, but I still find his approach very clever, intuitive and enlightning.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 06:10:00
|
Haven’t read my Kant in so long that I definitely forget his argument, the elegance of which I do not doubt. However, might not “ends not justifying the means” be an example of an absolute principle which breaks down when taken to extremes? A classic case of what I mean could be “justification” of torture when the ends are sufficiently great. Would, or should, we violate our moral principles by torturing an individual to save a million people? Or to save the entire human race? Granted, to torture would violate almost any credible moral standard, and therefore would be without justification according to that standard, but what is the value of that standard if upholding it involves an end to all life? Or even an end to any life?
If this extreme example offends one’s sense of absurdity, another might be what we would, or should, be willing to do to stop a certain behavior. I know that, given the power, I could stop illegal Mexican immigration into America. And I could justify it by demonstrating that in the end the result would be more merciful for both Mexicans and Americans.
Both of these cases pit moral rights against one another. The first places the right to fair treatment of the one against the right of the rest to life, and the second poses the right to fair treatment against the right of a society to exercise greater control over the nature of its culture.
Do all moral principles or prohibitions suffer similar breakdown at the extremes of their application? Are there moral absolutes?
|
Edited by - Erebus on 03/31/2005 06:12:29 |
|
|
|
ElevatorLady
= Cult of Ray =
385 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 06:54:25
|
| Well that's the problem, is it? Everything breaks down when you go into extremes, and that is because life is not black and white and there is no such thing absolute good and absolute evil in this world. It's fun to consider these extremes, but I think they have no real practical value. It's just not the way things work. And I don't really believe in absolutes. Of any kind. |
|
|
|
Monsieur
* Dog in the Sand *
France
1688 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 08:11:48
|
Erebus,
Let’s take an example. Suppose that by torturing one person you can save 100 lives. But then, a couple of years later one of those guys you saved (a very nice guy) has a son who becomes a serial killer and kills 200 persons (I think there is a story like this somewhere in the Bible). Clearly, you can only see a tiny part of the consequences of your action. You see your action as good, but it is limited to what you see. If you want to justify your action, ie determine whether it is moral or not, you cannot rely on such an unstable concept as its end. Because you can always find a superior end, and this never stops. Your action ought to be determined by a universal rule, that cannot depend on something else.
Kant’s answer is that the only thing that we can say about such a universal rule is its universality itself. That is, the rule that guides your action must be a possible universal law for humanity. For example, lying to kids “for their own good” is not moral, because the concept of lying cannot be universal.
All becomes very simple. You will not think (and it is impossible) about all the possible consequences of torturing a person, but about your action itself: is it moral to torture someone. By torture, you clearly see that person as means and deny him humanity.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 08:32:14
|
Yes, universalizability. It would seem to work quite well for less extreme examples. Though it may be convenient for me, and not too inconvenient for others, when I park my bicycle in the hallway at work, if everybody did it the hallway would be blocked. Therefore no bikes in the hallway.
Takes me back to consequentialism vs. deontologicalism. Guess I'm still a consequentialist.
Why does Kant enshrine universality as the measure? As opposed to other possible measures?
You're right that "all becomes very simple", but too simple for practice? |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 08:40:19
|
Very interesting, I'm intrigued by Mr. Kant as always. I haven't read "Grounding" but perhaps I should...
 "Join the Cult of Frank / Woo-bee-boo-dee-boo-dee-doo-weeoou." |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 10:34:23
|
i agree with Monsieur
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 11:40:43
|
I like that Monsieur, its simple, of course you cannot see all the consequences of your actions, just the immediate ones.
Kinda like movies where they go back in time.
Like how McFly ends up the cool one while Biff becomes the nerd, heheheee.
__________
This is the war and not the warning. |
|
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 12:02:04
|
looking at it that way though, we don't know fully the consequences of anything we do, throwing off food into a bin seems simple enough but if a tramp comes raids the bin gets sick from the off food and dies is it our fault? bad example, ok terms I understand better...
I guess I don't buy the whole eventual consequences argument because it is so broadly applied as a blanket dampner, a better example in non philosphical terms would be genetically modified foods, if you read the press these frankenstein crop products will ruin the so called natural order, people are playing god and the ends, all the possible social and economical good they could do vs, the means (the messing with genes) lose out.
stem cells, means - harvested from fetuses, ends - world of medical benefits
gene therapy means - messing with genes, ends - again many medical benefits
I don't think the ends justifying the means comes with a yes or no answer, I'm not a big fan of generalities but if I had to come down on a side I would say sometimes they do. But then I have to...
 cats have nine lives/ which makes them ideal for experimentation |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 12:18:37
|
But it could be a slippery slope like
stem cell research could equal poor women selling their fetuses (like we know some people sell their kidney in third world countries for money) which could equal a whole industry in abortion & fetus harvesting etc etc etc.
__________
This is the war and not the warning. |
|
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 12:23:33
|
actually, they've managed to trick cells into making stem cells sans fetus so it's sort of a bad example, but if all stem cell research had been banned like some people wanted that development would never have happened.
(retrieved! almost!)
cats have nine lives/ which makes them ideal for experimentation |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 12:28:05
|
Hmmmmm, yeah I got nuthin. 
__________
This is the war and not the warning. |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 13:09:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monsieur
Erebus,
Let’s take an example. Suppose that by torturing one person you can save 100 lives. But then, a couple of years later one of those guys you saved (a very nice guy) has a son who becomes a serial killer and kills 200 persons (I think there is a story like this somewhere in the Bible).
I will show you fear in a handful of dust
I also agree with Monsieur. I watched a film based around this theory a few weeks back, and I can't for the life of me remember what it was called. I expect you are right about it also being in the bible.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 13:43:07
|
My personal philosophy which probably doesn't apply at all:
The only golden rule is that there is no golden rule.
 "Oh dear / I seem to have joined the Cult of Frank." |
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 13:45:05
|
The first rule of Robot Club: No smoking
 I'm like a lost snail in the night. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:01:40
|
My brain doesn't work well on these conversations (philosophy - head spinning), but I think I agree with erebus. You can't possibly know all of the consequences of a behavior, but maybe you can know the likely consequences and base your behavior on those.
<insert Spock quote> |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:07:33
|
Yeah but does that justify it? It may justify it to you , but not to everyone else.
I guess it comes down the definition of justify, which is slightly hazy in itself.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
|
Edited by - Homers_pet_monkey on 03/31/2005 14:08:17 |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:07:35
|
Since an end is absolute, and everything comes to an end, and if you strip all temerity and soul away from this mathematical equation, then how can the means not be justified? But just as an ending is absolution, there breeds outcome. And outcome can be infinite. So justification of means will always be moral to some, and immoral to the remaining. Without Humanity, we would have no measure of endings, means, or justifications...and with Humanity we have no forseeable end to justification and means to reach a conclusion.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:28:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Yeah but does that justify it? It may justify it to you , but not to everyone else.
I guess it comes down the definition of justify, which is slightly hazy in itself.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
I'm sorry, what?
cats have nine lives/ which makes them ideal for experimentation |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:32:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Yeah but does that justify it? It may justify it to you , but not to everyone else.
I guess it comes down the definition of justify, which is slightly hazy in itself.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
I guess since I don't believe in God I also don't believe in a universal morality. By that I mean I don't believe is a true morality, but rather there are rules of morality (or conduct) that our socities have settled on over thousands of years. |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:37:06
|
I guess since I don't believe in God ... but rather there are rules of morality (or conduct) that our socities have settled on over thousands of years.
[/quote]
...which, unfortunately, were mostly created by religious governmental forces over the thousands of years.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:46:11
|
Actually, I think many of the rules predate religion. They predate being Homo sapiens.
I don't think humans are unique for rules for their societies. Other animals have rules of conduct, such as sharing resources when you have an excess but being repaid when you need help (vampire bats are a good example of this). Or cheater or individuals that try to represent themselves as something they're not get punished (attacked) (red-winged blackbirds I believe are a good example of this). |
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 15:00:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Actually, I think many of the rules predate religion. They predate being Homo sapiens.
I don't think humans are unique for rules for their societies. Other animals have rules of conduct, such as sharing resources when you have an excess but being repaid when you need help (vampire bats are a good example of this). Or cheater or individuals that try to represent themselves as something they're not get punished (attacked) (red-winged blackbirds I believe are a good example of this).
But we're speaking about morality. The phrase 'the end justifies the means' is indigenous to homosapiens, not our fine feathered friends. Being content in an outcome, even if alone in that fact, is not survival of the fittest or a programmed lending of help. It's Human, and it is unique, and it is vulnerable while also being calculated.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 15:37:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Actually, I think many of the rules predate religion. They predate being Homo sapiens.
I don't think humans are unique for rules for their societies. Other animals have rules of conduct, such as sharing resources when you have an excess but being repaid when you need help (vampire bats are a good example of this). Or cheater or individuals that try to represent themselves as something they're not get punished (attacked) (red-winged blackbirds I believe are a good example of this).
But we're speaking about morality.
That's my point. I don't think there is such thing as morality. I think there are rules that make societies work and evidence of that is other animal societies have these rules. So, the rules don't require religion, cognition, or belief in universal truths. If they did, other animals wouldn't have them.
quote:
The phrase 'the end justifies the means' is indigenous to homosapiens, not our fine feathered friends.
True of all phrases and I'm not just talking about birds (sorry a bit flippant there).
quote:
Being content in an outcome, even if alone in that fact, is not survival of the fittest or a programmed lending of help. It's Human, and it is unique, and it is vulnerable while also being calculated.
I think you are overestimating our free-will and underestimating the cognitive abilities of other animals. My opinion is we're not that different than other animals; we've just made up more jargon.
[soapbox]Have I ever mentioned that I wish the phrase "survival of fittest" was never uttered again? It's terrible simplification and misrepresentation of how evolution works.[/soapbox] |
|
|
|
PixieSteve
> Teenager of the Year <
Poland
4698 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 15:42:37
|
probably, but no one cares because we don't all name ourselves darwin on message boards. 
lolzabad |
Edited by - PixieSteve on 03/31/2005 15:46:23 |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:15:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Actually, I think many of the rules predate religion. They predate being Homo sapiens.
I don't think humans are unique for rules for their societies. Other animals have rules of conduct, such as sharing resources when you have an excess but being repaid when you need help (vampire bats are a good example of this). Or cheater or individuals that try to represent themselves as something they're not get punished (attacked) (red-winged blackbirds I believe are a good example of this).
But we're speaking about morality.
That's my point. I don't think there is such thing as morality. I think there are rules that make societies work and evidence of that is other animal societies have these rules. So, the rules don't require religion, cognition, or belief in universal truths. If they did, other animals wouldn't have them.
quote:
The phrase 'the end justifies the means' is indigenous to homosapiens, not our fine feathered friends.
True of all phrases and I'm not just talking about birds (sorry a bit flippant there).
quote:
Being content in an outcome, even if alone in that fact, is not survival of the fittest or a programmed lending of help. It's Human, and it is unique, and it is vulnerable while also being calculated.
I think you are overestimating our free-will and underestimating the cognitive abilities of other animals. My opinion is we're not that different than other animals; we've just made up more jargon.
[soapbox]Have I ever mentioned that I wish the phrase "survival of fittest" was never uttered again? It's terrible simplification and misrepresentation of how evolution works.[/soapbox]
Okay okay okay.
Without becoming argumentative (as is NEVER the case in debate!), I have to disagree on one point. There IS definately an existance of 'morality'. Acceptance of that fact does not in any way mean one has to subscribe to it. However, if one believes truly that NO belief in morality is how they operate, then it is like labeling oneself as 'non-conformist'. It simply negates itself.
I too, actually will disagree with my apparant overestimation of free-will. Free-will is free. It is bottomless. How can that be over-estimated unless a tax is slapped upon it? And as for animals (and I love animals more than people!), I could provide you with a pretty lengthy list of how we two lifeforms differ. Oh. But your speaking of cognitive abilities. You see. That's just it. Animals can't speak.
I would also like to state that we DO agree on one point...that morality is a code of conduct. However I would like to clear up what I feel you are not understanding what I originally said. You brought up God originally, stating a disbelief in that Entity, but agreeing in a conduct of morality settled upon by society(ies). I pointed out that religions have, since the history of mankind, PUSHED the idea of 'morality' onto the people...most of the time with dire consequences resulting from aberration from the norm...hence my labeling that as a governmental form. These are the rules you speak of...and they do require religion, cognition and belief in universal truths, because those are the things we think about! And if there are rules, there is morality!
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
PixieSteve
> Teenager of the Year <
Poland
4698 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:35:11
|
to me, religion is based on morals, not the other way around. religion put certain morals in writing and has tried to teach them as definitive and the word of god, but i think it is innate in humans (and as a non-believer in God, i don't think this is a result of god)
lolzabad |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:43:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
to me, religion is based on morals, not the other way around. religion put certain morals in writing and has tried to teach them as definitive and the word of god, but i think it is innate in humans (and as a non-believer in God, i don't think this is a result of god)
lolzabad
You are absolutely right. A social code of conduct. Religion has made a Wal-Mart of it. God has nothing to do with an end justifying a means. If He did, he'd have a lot of explaining to do!
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
PixieSteve
> Teenager of the Year <
Poland
4698 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:44:45
|
.... i'm scared because i'm not sure what to make of that.
lolzabad |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:46:29
|
me too, actually. I'm going to stop posting now.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
PixieSteve
> Teenager of the Year <
Poland
4698 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:48:16
|
don't mind me too much btw. i struggled to write that post. i can't say i'm sure what i believe.
lolzabad |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 20:35:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
Without becoming argumentative (as is NEVER the case in debate!), I have to disagree on one point. There IS definately an existance of 'morality'.
I'm not sure what that means. Do you think there is morality beyond what humans have created and believe? If you want to call rules of society morality, then I agree there is mortality. If you think morality is universal and is some kind of truth that lies beyond the invention of man, then I disagree. Perhaps we agree.
quote:
I too, actually will disagree with my apparant overestimation of free-will. Free-will is free. It is bottomless. How can that be over-estimated unless a tax is slapped upon it?
My point is that we don't have much of it. We think were making decisions based on our rational thought, but much of what we do is just reactions based cognitive rules that have evolved over our evolutionary history. Our brains are wired in ways that lead to certain decisions. People like Dennett and Pinker have written about this if you're interested.
quote:
And as for animals (and I love animals more than people!), I could provide you with a pretty lengthy list of how we two lifeforms differ. Oh. But your speaking of cognitive abilities. You see. That's just it. Animals can't speak.
But they do have languages. And those languages even differ regionally. How do you think animals communicate with each other?
quote:
You brought up God originally, stating a disbelief in that Entity, but agreeing in a conduct of morality settled upon by society(ies). I pointed out that religions have, since the history of mankind, PUSHED the idea of 'morality' onto the people...most of the time with dire consequences resulting from aberration from the norm...hence my labeling that as a governmental form. These are the rules you speak of...and they do require religion, cognition and belief in universal truths, because those are the things we think about! And if there are rules, there is morality!
And my point is that those rules exist in other animal societies, so obviously they don't require religion. Cognition and belief is harder to say. Something either cognitive or innate has to prescribe the costs and benefits of animals using different sets of behaviors.
I'm enjoying this conversation. I hope you are as well.
|
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 05:03:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Yeah but does that justify it? It may justify it to you , but not to everyone else.
I guess it comes down the definition of justify, which is slightly hazy in itself.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
I guess since I don't believe in God I also don't believe in a universal morality. By that I mean I don't believe is a true morality, but rather there are rules of morality (or conduct) that our socities have settled on over thousands of years.
That's fair enough.
Kitty, I can't help you if you can't understand what I put.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The end justifies the means.
