The debate "Does the end justify the means" was started by
August 6, 2018, 6:48 am.
By the way, SaffronSHAM3 is disagreeing with this statement.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 39 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
SaffronSHAM3 posted 11 arguments, WhiteCaller posted 1 argument, SilentArg posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
12 visitors agree.
KT, PhrozenKeyy, lachlan2, WhiteCaller, SilentArg, TheCommunist, SaffronSHAM3, Debater1127, RachelAvez and 30 visitors disagree.
unfortunately, thanos was wrong.
bringing it back to earth, people have claimed resources would run out repeatedly in the last few centuries... and everytime our populations not only skyrocketed, but products became CHEAPER. food MORE ABUNDANT, and poverty and starvation are dropping.
it's not how many resources are available, it's how well we use them that creates infinite potential. and the more people we have, the more minds we have to find solutions, and the more hands we have to implement and build those solutions.
Killing a person to save the world is justified. Dude did you just watch mission impossible or what.
And killing a baby to save yourself is not justified.
How can killing a baby save you.
These are some of the most illogical and irrational examples i have ever heard of
Dude it is not an extremely simplified debate, it is a philosophical debate. Why cant you just get it
It is a yes or no question, how can it not have an answer. Do you think that the 35 people who have voted either for or against are fools?
Dude you are providing unrealistic and bizarre examples which are either impossible or improbable, instead try providing some valid examples which have occurred or at least hold a light possibility of occuring
I'm not sure how you aren't getting this. your question does not have an answer. it is way too vague. the ends do not always justify the means, but they do sometimes. so it is impossible to totally agree or disagree with your statement.
killing one person to save the world is justified, the end justified the means. killing a baby to save yourself is not justified, the end does not justify the means.
i can keep providing examples on both sides but it sounds like you want an extremely simplified debate with no context whatsoever, which frankly is completely pointless.
Dude in a debate there are always 2 perspectives. You have to pick one and then argue for it. Here you have 2 choices-either to say that the end justifies the means or it doesn't. Morality is subjective and so should every topic of a debate be. If there are more than one answers only then a debate can take place. A debate cant happen if there is only 1 answer. Cause then what is there to debate on if you have only one answer.
And mr. Historybuff this question doesnt need context, it is a philosophical question. Why dont you get it. Your illogical statements are hampering the progress of the debate. So i suggest you to take a side or stay put.
what is better chocolate or vanilla? is there one answer to that question? I might think it's chocolate and you might think it is vanilla. both can be seen to be correct.
likewise, morality is also subjective. one culture might consider something morally justified while another may not. so while you have phrased it as a yes or no question, neither/both are correct depending on who you ask.
furthermore, you have phrased it without context. if I asked is a plane faster than a car, most people would say yes. but what if we are talking about a really old plane, or the plane is out of gas, or the car has a jet engine on it etc. different circumstances will affect the answer. planes are usually faster than cars, but not universally so.
Ya ,I think that means don't justify the end because then Thanos would have been justified in destroying half the life on universe??.because the resources of the universe are finite and he want sufficiency of resources for everyone.
But if the fundamental human rights are lost in the means then what use is the end. Isnt that what the goal of a government. To create rights for every person and ensure that those rights are ensured for every person and also they should be enforced through courts of law. If the means violate a persons rights and privacy, then what good is the end obtained by them
I feel that mr. Saffron is right. The question is good,but i have a different approach to the topic. I feel that the ends do justify the means. Because in todays world if we were too concerned about the means then we would not be able to achieve any concrete results.
Dude it is just a yes or no question. How can there be any more answers in a yes or no question . And the answer to every debate is subjective, in that case. Isnt that what a debate is? to prove your perspective and argue for it. And i never said that there was only one answer. I just choosed a side from the two sides that every debate offers and should offer.
I know that different cultures have different ideas on what means are justified and what are not,but still their beliefs had to be inclined to one of the sides in the debate. So yes there is no one right answer, there are 2 perspectives(or sides) i.e. yes or no. Now if you are not able to decide between the 2 sides then please try to not add arguments regarding any "apparent" problem in the question. I have been to many international debates and this topic has been taken up for discussion in many of them. So i suggest you dont try to prove the question wrong in vain just because you are indecisive. Instead try to pick a side and fight for it. No room for bystanders in a debate.
why would I pick a side when the question is flawed? it's like saying one person is more attractive than another. it is a subjective question. morality, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. just because you believe there is only one right answer doesn't make that true.
different people and cultures have very different ideas of what is right or justified. these ideas also change over time. there is no single answer to your question.
There is always a right answer to every question. Considering your argument it seems like you would have left that 1 person to die so that you wouldnt have had to take any risk. I would have taken the risk and tried to save the one person.
Because the guilt of letting a person die is worse than killing a person.
In any case, if you would have been confronted with such a situation, you could not have just shunned it and said that there is no right answer. You can say that from the comfort of your home.There your indecisiveness would have cost lives.
Also, the situation you have imagined is too surreal and bizarre.
Therefore i bessech you to have a more open mind and to choose a side. Do not just try to prove the question wrong. The people who are voting for or against the statement are not fools
I think he meant it more like this. there is an explosion or a fire. you need to seal the blast door to save everyone but you know someone is still on the other side. there is no time to ask them, you need to make the decision. do you close the door and save everyone or leave it open to maybe save that one guy and put everyone's lives at serious risk.
the end is saving everyone's lives, the means is leaving 1 person to die.
there is no right answer to that question. do the needs of the many outway the needs of the few or the one?
A straggler should not be locked without being informed. Because it may be possible that the straggler might have a better solution to the problem. You cannot lock a person without informing him of the circumstances, or else he/she may panic, and that may lead to mishaps. Some people might not understand why a person was locked and therefore the misunderstanding could cause further problems. Its to no ones benefit if a person is locked up against his will and without proper information
Therefore here it proves that without appropriate means the end will NOT always be the best end possible. Because if the straggler was told to stay inside as his life is in danger,he would have had a choice to hide or to help fight the attack. Therefore the means are not justified
whatever may be the end, if a persons will is compromised.
A person's own will should never be curbed under any circumstance, if it concerns his own well-being.
If you would have informed the man, maybe he would have helped you by warning others about the fire.
Therefore the end does not justify the means whatever the case maybe because if the means are not the best possible then neither is the end.
Therefore Mr. Nemiroff this question does have an answer but the problem is you are too indecisive too arrive at it. Also it does not require any details, because if you look closely
Its a question under the philosophical section
it all depends on the situation, the means, and the ends.
is it right to sacrifice a healthy person for organs to help 10 people? probably not. but is it right to lock the door behind a straggler when a fire or attack is heading your way, if it looks like everyone will die otherwise, it may be right.
this is one of those questions that has no answer without details
If means would justify the ends, then copying in exams would be justified, as it yields good results.
So this was my take on the topic
I would encourage others to be a part of the discussion preferably through counter points to
My long "Soliloquy".
If u liked my points then please upvote them
The world is a funny place. In order to reach to the end. The most inhumane and illogical ways are used. The people implementing these means forget that there is no end in and to this infinite universe. Therefore the means is what we live and experience and that is exactly what
We should strive to make better.
Sometimes the ends are used as a tool to justify some insanely immoral and inhumane means. Citing an example - the indian government implemented demonization, which is great. But they implemented it so poorly that it led to hundreds of deaths, which is probably more than the death toll of any terror attack india has witnessed. Should the Indian government then be
considered a terrorist organization?Maybe. But the government defended their policy by stating that it turned trillions of black money to paper waste. But was stopping illegal cash flow worth hundreds of citizens. Was it a sane decision considering it sent the stock market rolling down?
Therefore to whatever end it may be, i feel the means do not justify the ends. IN FACT I would go as far to say that the MEANS DEFINES THE END