Primal

I am not absolute about this, but I think the means can often times justify the ends.

The ends just determine where you are, for the moment. Temporary conditions. Whereas means, principles will in the long-run determine where one is going and where one will tend to end up. Of course there are exceptions but I think it usually more important to promote/stick to good means, then to sacrifice them for single and fleeting good ends.

abe smith

It doesn't MATTER whether there's some abstract decision (by whom?) , that the ends do or don't "justify the means". (Cf the current jabber about human reproductive cloning.)
IF human beings can arrange to do something they want to do, they'll DO it; and the fancy-minded abstract blah-blah about whether their action is "moral" or not isn't going to make the slightest difference. Self-appointed moralists/religionists have always issued moral mandates about every new human option; and their emissions haven't made a /any difference whatever.
Whatever human beings WANT to do, they'll DO it if they can.

winstonjen

I don't think they'll ALWAYS do it. Criminals probably commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, or they feel justified. If their own consciences don't stop them, then nothing probably will.

Mageth

"If the end does not justify the means--what can?" --Edward Abbey

Tani

what is an end? an end is where you want to get at.
what is a means? a means is what you have to go through to get at what you want to get at.

now, that's pretty much trivial, but it prompts me to think:

1) if you have define something as an end, and the other things as the mean, then obviously the end justify the means as the means is not what you want to get at, so it'd be ideal if you don't ever even need to get through them. ie. it'd be perfect if there is just the end, with no such thing as the means one needs to go through.

2) but if you have multiple ends and by achieving one end, you'd have to go through the means that would effectively subotage the means of another end (one of the multiple ends), or directly violate another end (again, one of the multiple ends), then the end does not justify the means only because it affects the achievement of the other ends.

3) now, i'd argue that, every instance of the means either leads to something consequential, or inconsequential. by consequential, i mean something that would involve ones preference. by inconsequential, i mean when someone tell you this-or-that will happen, and you'd be thinking: yes, but what is special about it? - as in there is no preferece whatsoever if it happens or not at all. so every instance of the means that is inconsequental needs no justification, since no one cares by definition, and every instance of the means that is consequental is itself an end. therefore, no end can justify the means as no instances of the means that needs justification is not itself also an end.

my conclusion, therefore, is that the means either need no justification, or every instance that needs justification qualify as ends themselves. simply, the phrase "the end justify the means" means nothing. it's more of a question of if you prefer one end over the other, but since the justifiability of preference is a questionable subject, imo, so rather than if you can justify your preference, the question would properly be if you can justify you having preference.

Taffsadar

The end MUST justify the means if you want me to do something...

Silent Acorns

Saying that "the ends don't justify the means" means that the results alone can never be sufficent justification for any action. By this logic, if you go back in time and murder Hitler to stop the Holocaust and WW2 and succeed in both, the fact that you saved 50 million lives is not enough to justify the murder.

This saying means (in effect) that actions can only be justified by testing whether they fit in with a set of principles, and that "the ends can justify the means" is not one of these principles. In other words, actions are only justified if they follow "the law".

Effectively, this is the same thing as saying that the "ends do justify the means, but the integrety of the law has an infinite value".

winstonjen

Hmmm...I think that an objection to murdering Hitler in the past would come from the availability of better options - perhaps keeping Hitler from taking over Germany would suffice. I can understand that viewpoint.

Silent Acorns

My example is meant to be used in the context of "the ends can't justify the means". If this principle is to have any meaning it must be applicable always. If there is even one counter example when the ends do justify the means, then it becomes: "the ends can justify the means if the good of the ends outweighs the bad of the means". In other words: "the ends can justify the means".

I only wanted to point out that anyone who says that the ends can NEVER justify the means, is also saying that the integrity of the process of law superceeds all other considerations.

It's important to point out though that someone can put a very high (but finite) value on the rule of law and thus make it very difficult to justify an action by the means alone.

dk

No doubt good can come from evil, but even so that's a country mile from a justification for evil.

You say great evil comes from doing good, please be specific?