"The end justifies the means"
- Thread starter peduncle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"The end justifies the mean" is not something to keep at heart. The end is your goal, and the means of how you go about what you do dictates the end; if your means are tarnished, the end is as well. Get into the habit of relying on 'bad' means for 'good' ends and your view of an 'acceptable' end will begin to blur.
The mean is only justified if the intentional sacrifice factor is kept as low as possible (preferably none at all).
I suppose I'm shooting for the matter of principle here.
The mean is only justified if the intentional sacrifice factor is kept as low as possible (preferably none at all).
I suppose I'm shooting for the matter of principle here.
It depends on what your 'means' are.
If it is anything in your power (including blackmailing and other misdeeds) then no, no goal would really be worth something like that.
This is just a generalisation, not every case is like this. There are obviously exceptions, although I won't care to name them.
If it is anything in your power (including blackmailing and other misdeeds) then no, no goal would really be worth something like that.
This is just a generalisation, not every case is like this. There are obviously exceptions, although I won't care to name them.
As much as I've been glared at for my habitual phrase, I'll use it again. It depends.
It depend on what the end is. Some things aren't justifiable to the general population no matter what. If your end is to save the environment and eradicate humanity in the process, you won't get a great reception. If your end is to implement sustainable human habitats within an environmentally friendly society, you'll get support.
It depends on the means too, for obvious reasons.
Just putting this out there, my Nihilistic tendencies mean that I consider any "justification" to be relative. To really weigh up end and means you need a set series of principles by which it's justifiable to you. It probably won't be to others.
It depend on what the end is. Some things aren't justifiable to the general population no matter what. If your end is to save the environment and eradicate humanity in the process, you won't get a great reception. If your end is to implement sustainable human habitats within an environmentally friendly society, you'll get support.
It depends on the means too, for obvious reasons.
Just putting this out there, my Nihilistic tendencies mean that I consider any "justification" to be relative. To really weigh up end and means you need a set series of principles by which it's justifiable to you. It probably won't be to others.
It depends on the actions and the result. It's no point saying "I had to get that candy bar, and ramming that person through the glass was necessary, the end justifies the means" It's all a matter of perspective.
The ends always justify the means, I have no problem with doing whatever needs to be done to get what I want.
The ends only justify the means if the ends are worth more than the means.
An example, if the "ends" is saving the human race from destroying its self, and the "means" is sascrificing a few million to some big old space alien, then sure the "ends" probably justify the "means" as it is generaly understood that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
However if the "ends" is a cookie and the "means" is killing everyone in the store, then the "ends" dont justify the "means", unless its a really good cookie.
Or if the "ends" was more money than I could ever spend and the "means" was go kill random innocent bystander, personaly the "ends" would justify the "means" personal experiances may vary in this case
An example, if the "ends" is saving the human race from destroying its self, and the "means" is sascrificing a few million to some big old space alien, then sure the "ends" probably justify the "means" as it is generaly understood that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
However if the "ends" is a cookie and the "means" is killing everyone in the store, then the "ends" dont justify the "means", unless its a really good cookie.
Or if the "ends" was more money than I could ever spend and the "means" was go kill random innocent bystander, personaly the "ends" would justify the "means" personal experiances may vary in this case
In my personal opinion, this is one of the most easily abused adages in history. Examples like In order to prevent the convent from burning down, the fire department created a vacuum to douse the flames. While effective, the clergy inside the building asphyxiated within seconds. are proof enough that the theory is easily exploited.
I personally think that if one cannot come up with a solution with both reasonable means and reasonable ends, then one is likely not fit for the job in the first place. Nearly everything can be passed off to someone else. Knowing one's limits is just as important as knowing one's capabilities.
I personally think that if one cannot come up with a solution with both reasonable means and reasonable ends, then one is likely not fit for the job in the first place. Nearly everything can be passed off to someone else. Knowing one's limits is just as important as knowing one's capabilities.
As a rule, if the benefit to the general public caused by the end is significantly greater than the damage caused by the means, then it's justified. This rule isn't that reliable, though.
Jack Bauer says so. AND HAS HE EVER BEEN WRONG!?!
No. No he has not.
Although he is a fictional character.
No. No he has not.
Although he is a fictional character.
Pretty much this.Father Time said:
Another way is looking at is that the means are the most important part. I mean, if in order to achieve your goals you lose your humanity, obviously the ends didn't justify the means.