• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do the ends justifies the means?

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
Okay, so over in the politics thread, there are some threads discussing the correctness of the US doing a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

In my mind, a pre-emptive attack where no eminent threat exists (and that certainly does seem to be the case) is an unjust act. However, one of the ends of the attack was a just one, specifically removing a horrible dictator from power.

Does the one just end outweigh the use of unjust acts to obtain it? The common wisdom goes that "the ends don't justify the means." If it does in this case, why?
 
I think that the idea that you need to ' justify ' something, implies that you did something wrong.


I think it's best to deal with the consequences of our actions in the best way possible, and the heck with ' justification '...
 
Diogenes said:
I think that the idea that you need to ' justify ' something, implies that you did something wrong.
Click to expand...
In a practical sense, that's true, but even right actions have justifications. For example, I help an old lady across the street because I would want somone to help me across the street when I am old.
I think it's best to deal with the consequences of our actions in the best way possible, and the heck with ' justification '...
Click to expand...
The problem I have with that is that the morality of the action is decided after the fact. In other words, If you could travel back in time and brutally killed a pregnent woman because that woman would give birth to Adolph Hitler, would that action be morally justified? Is it okay to punish an individual for a crime that might or could commit?
 
You can justify virtually anything ex post facto.

There's a reason I was opposed to the timing of the war (as opposed to the primary intent of removing Saddam). Looks like both I and those who opposed for other reasons have been vindicated.

I once told a co-worker of mine that GeeDubyah was a simple man with a simple vision. My co-worker thought that was a compliment.

How about we take this macro down to an individual level - and I'm sure Hammedgk or whatever the f*** SSoS's login is will appreciate this?

I have a chance of late to have sex with a woman I've desirerd unrequitedly for six years. She's everything I want physically. And yet, I hold back. Why? Well, let's just say it would be wrong for me to just have sex with her. My ends - having sex with her - would satisfly my means - to have sex with her. But there is more to the issue than just simply dropping trou and doing it. Odd that a supposedly hedonistic unrestrained athiest (at least according to Hammdgk) should consider someone elses feelings than his own.

Or is it....
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
You can justify virtually anything ex post facto.

There's a reason I was opposed to the timing of the war (as opposed to the primary intent of removing Saddam). Looks like both I and those who opposed for other reasons have been vindicated.

I once told a co-worker of mine that GeeDubyah was a simple man with a simple vision. My co-worker thought that was a compliment.

How about we take this macro down to an individual level - and I'm sure Hammedgk or whatever the f*** SSoS's login is will appreciate this?

I have a chance of late to have sex with a woman I've desirerd unrequitedly for six years. She's everything I want physically. And yet, I hold back. Why? Well, let's just say it would be wrong for me to just have sex with her. My ends - having sex with her - would satisfly my means - to have sex with her. But there is more to the issue than just simply dropping trou and doing it. Odd that a supposedly hedonistic unrestrained athiest (at least according to Hammdgk) should consider someone elses feelings than his own.

Or is it....
Click to expand...

Uh, if you're not gonna take advantage of her offer, could I have her phone number? :D
 
Do you think the goal was to simply remove an evil dictator and free a people? After all there are many dictators and oppressed people.

Or do you think the end goal is to stabilize the entire Middle East?

Both are admirable goals. But the latter requires more expedient timing than the former.
 
Gulliamo said:
Do you think the goal was to simply remove an evil dictator and free a people? After all there are many dictators and oppressed people.

Or do you think the end goal is to stabilize the entire Middle East?
Click to expand...
Well, the stated primary goal was neither, but rather to protect ourselves and other countries from Saddam's WMDs and to force Iraq (i.e. Saddam) to comply with UN resolutions. The removing Saddam and, thus, freeing the people, was a side issue, at best. I don't remember anyone specifying that this action might stabilize the entire Middle East, but that doesn't mean someone didn't say it.
Both are admirable goals. But the latter requires more expedient timing than the former.
Click to expand...
It's true, but my question is not whether the qoals were admirable, or justified, but whether the actions used to achieve those goals were justified and what makes them so?
 
Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes, it depends on the end and the means used to achieve it.
 
I think we must wait until we see if the mission was a success before we can make a decision as to whether or not the actions are justifiable.

If, as a result of the war, the Iraqi people are freed, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jerusalem, Palestine and the others all lower there guns, take up democracy and learn to get along, then, yes! The actions are justifiable.

If, on the other hand, we get bogged down in a century long political and moral quagmire, we rile up everyone into world war three, and cause more death and destruction than we prevent then no! The actions are definitely not!
 
A good end justifies a good means. A good end does not justify a bad means.

A pretty good and short essay on the subject can be found here:

http://radicalacademy.com/adlerendsmeans.htm

From Mortimer J. Adler

Men in power have often tried to condone their use of violence or fraud by making it appear that their injustice to individuals was for the social good and was, therefore, justified. But since the good society involves justice for all, a government which employs unjust means defeats the end it pretends to serve. You cannot use bad means for a good end any more than you can build a good house out of bad materials.
Click to expand...

The next question is: what is a good means? This could result in a “lesser of two evils” type of situation. But that is also a setup for at least one false dilemma.
 
In the long run, the ends never justify the means, because eventually the world reacts to the means...

Or that's what I conclude.
 
Good question, can the ends justify the means?

Well of course they can!

However, if the negative aspects of the means substantially outweighs the positive aspects of the ends, then one cannot say that the ends have justified the means.
 
Crossbow said:

However, if the negative aspects of the means substantially outweighs the positive aspects of the ends, then one cannot say that the ends have justified the means.
Click to expand...

This is true, especially in Iraq. Yes, Saddam is bad and evil etc, should be removed from power...but five thousand or more innoncent civilians "had" to die to accomplish it. Undoubtably more. Could the same End be accomplished with more justifiable means? Personally, I think if it was so important to remove Hussein from power using military might, than a single 69 cent bullet could have done the job a lot more efficiently with significantly less unecessary loss of life.
 
Diogenes said:
UnrepentantSinner,

What is your Avatar these days? I can't quite make it out...
Click to expand...

It's a book cover. :)

repent.gif
 
I wonder how we are to ascertain where to place the values in this situation (the Iraq one). Should we in any way give leniance to the Bush administration if they are shown to have been duplicitous (either deliberately or by omission) in their handling of Iraq?

The pre-emption doctrine is really frightening in my opinion. Although I don't believe that they will use such strategy at all times, once the US reaches a point where they believe they are out of the reach of any retaliatory efforts that such a route will be used more often, especially if the domestic flak that the administration receives isn't enough to keep them out of office for another 4 years (which it probably won't).

Personally, I don't believe the ends ever justify the means, but in a pragmatic world, I must admit that this rule is broken for me at times. Hopefully someone will post an argument that I find attractive, and more infallible than my own.
 
Ultimately, I think that the ends justify the means if and only if the net benefit of your actions outweigh the net harm of your actions.

I don't think we are anywhere near calculating the net harm or gain from the War on Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom