Ends justify the means or vice versa
- Thread starter volinbham
- Start date
BigPapaVol
Wave yo hands in the aiya
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 63,225
- Likes
- 14
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
BigPapaVol
Wave yo hands in the aiya
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 63,225
- Likes
- 14
If I'm going in blind it's the latter. If I know something to be a fact I'm not going to be so concerned with the rules. For instance, if I watched somebody kill someone I cared about it would not at all matter what the "justice system" does. If he's acquitted, and I find him, he's a dead man.
Perhaps a severe example but it's one I think most people could wrap their head around.
Perhaps a severe example but it's one I think most people could wrap their head around.
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
rjd970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 24,298
- Likes
- 24,323
Means justify the end person here. I view the other as bending/breaking the rules. Besides, what if everybody doesn't agree with the end...or worse, what if you are wrong with the end? Focusing on the means allows for a feedback loop that can optimize the process to get to the end. If the means leads to a bad end, then something is wrong with the means.
It just seems to me that an ends justify the means breeds anarchy.
It just seems to me that an ends justify the means breeds anarchy.
orangeblooded2
**Temple of Truth**
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 9,076
- Likes
- 358
The end justifing the means. No
Doing anything whatsoever that is required to get the result you want, regardless of the methods used. It does not matter whether these methods are legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil: the phrase refers to the deliberate use of wrong methods and law-breaking by the powerful to get their way or remove an opponent or whatever, and immediate and self-righteous denial if details are made known. A good example would be that of "Watergate", when President Richard Nixon (aka "Tricky Dicky") was eventually forced to resign after it became known that senior White House officials had approved the burglary of the Democratic Party headquarters which were in the Watergate Hotel. The end result of 'the ends justifies the means' is anarchy and lawlessness................Actually the end justifies the means refers to the morality of an action. It means that the morality of an action is based solely on the outcome of that action and not on the action itself. Example: Telling a lie that has no negative effect on anyone and saves someone grief is good. Killing someone to save others is ok. ect. A deontologist would say lying/killing is always bad. A consequentialist would say that it is ok if the outcome is positive. It can involve illegal activities and what some would consider immoral methods, but definitely is not based on that.
Doing anything whatsoever that is required to get the result you want, regardless of the methods used. It does not matter whether these methods are legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil: the phrase refers to the deliberate use of wrong methods and law-breaking by the powerful to get their way or remove an opponent or whatever, and immediate and self-righteous denial if details are made known. A good example would be that of "Watergate", when President Richard Nixon (aka "Tricky Dicky") was eventually forced to resign after it became known that senior White House officials had approved the burglary of the Democratic Party headquarters which were in the Watergate Hotel. The end result of 'the ends justifies the means' is anarchy and lawlessness................Actually the end justifies the means refers to the morality of an action. It means that the morality of an action is based solely on the outcome of that action and not on the action itself. Example: Telling a lie that has no negative effect on anyone and saves someone grief is good. Killing someone to save others is ok. ect. A deontologist would say lying/killing is always bad. A consequentialist would say that it is ok if the outcome is positive. It can involve illegal activities and what some would consider immoral methods, but definitely is not based on that.
VN Store
