Is this ever true? If so, what are some examples?

Thought it might be time for another philospohical thread.

problem: my kids are starving and i have no money.

means: i steal food.

ends: my kids are not starving anymore.



if i did this, i would feel that the ends justified the means. but i also know it is against the law to steal, so i would expect to get in trouble if i got caught.

Problem: People are not born equal

means: Harrison Bergeron http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

ends: Equality.

I think it was Kant who said one should treat people as an end and not as a means to an end.

To go about life in the attempt to not treat anything as a means to an end though is purely idealistic. We're animals after all, nothing noble in our pursuits save for a breif moment or two of beauty.

Problem: Need some lunch

Means: $2

Ends: Slice of pizza

Is another way to ask this philospohical question; "Was it worth it?" ?

Exactly, because really our decisions that we make usually aren't ending anything, just a temporary ending in which it will start up another decision making process soon after.

Decisions are more like a Cyclic process, on going and on going.

i just realized how utilitarian this thought was.

Utilitarianism very much supports "ends justifying the means", because its concern is basically the ends, and whatever means one choses to achieve an end, as long as the end results in "the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people", then it justifies the means.

it's often true, however the phrase is typically invoked when it isn't.

this case, in my opinion, the question of ethical right vs wrong depends on who you steal the food from. If someone has so much food, or money for that matter, that he cannot really keep tabs on them, that he won't even notice that you stole them, then you are totally justified in stealing the food. but if you are stealing from someone who needs it as much as you do, then it would be questionable.

lets not forge that if the ends justify the means, they also reflect the means. For example, someone who gain power by being corrupt, making enemies,etc will lost support and eventually being defeated. Maquiavel wasnt stupid to believe that one can do anything he wants withouth facing the consequences.

Right. Because it's ok to use force to take things away from people without their consent... so long as you perceive that you need it and they don't.

let's not get into the argument of perceptions, that could be its own glorious thread, but a bit off topic here.

Yes, it's true.

Example: If Wazzu is playing another Pac-10 team - say...Cal - late in the season, and the Huskies are tied with Cal for the conference lead, then yes, it's OK for a Husky fan to root for the Cougs.

to me,there are a big difference between the "ends" you perceive and the "ends" you get. In this case you stated, the person would end up killed or in jail.

This idea is pretty key to this thread. There is often a large difference between short term and long term ends, that the rightousness of 'means' is often lost depending on whether or not the 'ends' are long or short-term.

Well, this certainly dumbed up the thread.

The answer is no. If the means are unjust the intentional or unintentional outcomes resulting from that act don't have an impact on that. They would play a part in determining whether the initial act or acts are just or unjust, but they aren't the sole determinator. Also, this is all assuming such things have predictable outcomes, which is almost never the case.

So.... If the means are unjust, should the ends then be disgarded? And if not, were the means really unjust?

You're right, Kant sort of set the rules for this although I'm less familiar with his moral philosophies and the categorical imperative - whatever that even means. Kant also based his philosophy on "maxims" which were that whatever action you take, you should apply it to everyone else as well and that if it has those benefits it is appropriate to act on them. Or something as such, it's probably more complicated than that.

Speaking from my point of view - when people say "the means justify the ends" - I feel that it's Christian or religious dogma more than anything. It's operating under a "do-anything-to-achieve-the-ideal" clause which I think is dangerous and leads down the path of superstition and totalitarianism. Historically speaking, it's what happened in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cambodia, in Nazi Germany, in a lot of Middle Eastern countries and amongst fanatics, and it's happening to the United States at this very moment.

You are just too cute today... and I tend to think those same things. When I hear "the ends justify the means" it reminds me of "you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs" which was the defining message of Soviet Socialism.