Davo

One's answer will depend on their views on rights-based theories of ethics and also virtue ethics. If you have a place in your ethical outlook for virtue ethics or for rights, there are going to be situations in which you cannot simply go after the "greater good" using whatever means you choose.

All of us do, however, seem to have some place in our moral intuition for utilitarianism.

Victor Drake

OF COURSE the ends can justify the means. The net outcome of an action is what matters. If an action produces more net good than harm, in can be justified.

Example:
Taking people's property by force or the threat of force is generally wrong, but the government can make you move out of your house to build a highway because the public good of enabling transportation outweighs the harm of denying someone's property rights in this way.

The only real point of legitimate (IMO) dispute here is the relative subjective value of a given 'good' and a given 'harm'.
You may argue that THIS goal does not justify THAT method, but to deny that the ends are a factor in moral/ethical calculation is to say:
1. The public good served by schools, hospitals, and firefighters does not justify the government taking a quarter of my paycheck every week.
2. Self-defense is no justification for homicide, or even bruising your would-be killer.
3. Protecting the public from robbers and rapists does not justify locking them up.

Undercurrent

I'd go out on a limb and say yes, the ends do justify the means. The problem is that most of the time people don't consider all of the ends when they're making the calculation, but only the ones they're perticularily interested in.

m.

winstonjen

True, true, and people may not think about the consequences of the actions used.

seebs

The reason we say "the ends don't justify the means", apart from "it's a phrase someone used, and it sounded cool", is that some ends are not justification enough for the means used. Often, we can see that the means being used are so insanely destructive that it's hard to imagine an end justified by them. Really, though, the problem is one of throwing good money after bad; after one has accepted a given cost of achieving a goal, it is tempting to continue accepting more and more greater and greater costs... generally, costs to someone else.

Hmm. "Throwing good morals after bad"?

catman

I am not a criminal--but have become a threat to become one as of late--so the cops have been bugging my apartment and tapping my phone, and following me--or going to where I am headed at--just about everywhere. Their involvement into my family problems has prolonged it greatly. Had they stayed out of the way--the problem would have solved itself months ago and I wouldn't have become the threat that I have. Emotionallly I have finally taken myself completely out of the picture so that I know I will not be commiting any crimes now. The problem may still exist in others minds--I am sure it does--but not mine. So, I will go along with the ends justifies the means. But in my case it would have been better for the cops to stay out of my domestic disputes altogether. But try convincing them that.

Infinity Lover

I think this line of reasoning is ass backwards, because the ends are, by default, never fully predictable.

Dr. Retard

One possible source of confusion: "ends" means "results" and it means "purposes, goals".

I think when people say "The ends don't justify the means", they mean "Sublime goals are not enough to justify the means by which you try to achieve them".

catman

Infinity Lover is most correct here. We can always control the means--we can't always predict the ends. I never in my example didn't say that I would not/could not have commited a crime. But the cops definitely prolong and intensified the situation to where I very nearly did. At any rate, had they butt out from the get go, then the problem would have been resolved on its own by now--but it still exist. I just am no longer a threat in it because I have taken my emotions out.

Certain means--by all means--can create several unpredictable ends besides the predictable and desired one.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: catman ]</p>

karthik

which is more barbaric? Torturing a terrorist who has reliable information about an imminent nuclear threat or Gandhi's assertion that millions of jewish victims should have followed the path of nonviolent resistance hoping to change the mind of Hitler? I would say that the "means" that appeal to the pacifists (such as satyagraha or civil disobedience) are more sinister in nature than anarmed struggle.