"The end justifies the means"?

2_fadez

2_fadez

Active member
Alright all you NS philosophers out there, I was in a discussion today and a kid brought up the saying:

"The end justifies the means"

True or not true?

But srsly guys, help me with my English hw.
 
Depends on what the ends and means are. Like killing somebody before he kills like ten people, in that situation you can say the ends justify the means.
 
Scenario 1:

Say there is a new kid in your class. You know that he drives an awesome sports car. You go up to him and say "Hey man, we should go out to lunch sometime-buy you should drive." Your only true motive is that you want to take a ride in his car

Scenario 2:

Same new kid with the same car but this time, you don't know that he has the car. You go up to him and say "Lets get lunch some time." You become friends and take a ride in his car

People shouldn't be used as a means to get to an end. The first scenario, in my opinion, is totally immoral. Ends don't justify means
 
It's not really a blanket statement, is it?
You're really not giving us enough information. Essentially you're asking us 'is y greater than x?' without giving us any information as to what y or x actually are.
I'm a bit angry with you, actually.
 
Please forgive me.

Prompt:

Is the proverb "The end justifies the means" ever true, whether in bigger global situations or personal, everyday experiences? Please provide specific examples in your response
 
The proverb 'the end justifies the means' can certainly be true, and indeed every prudent decision to commence activity is founded on the idea.
 
Dude it's english homework; there is no right nor wrong answer, just how well you support it.
Here's an idea to run with though libertarianism is completely incompatible with consequentialism, and the smallest existence of the latter destroys any possibility of the former existing.
 
you want a cupcake, a man next to you has a cupcake, you kill that man to have the cupcake, you have a cupcake. Yes the end justifies the means
 
the end will be the same regardless so there's no sense in trying to justify anything in between

no matter how you end a story there will always be an inevitable ending
 
You could go with an inverted Hume's guillotine: there is no ought from what will be. If you can't deduce how something should be from how things are at the present, could this mean the same if you can't deduce "your means" even if you know "the end"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top