Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
It depends on both, whether the result justifies the process used to obtain it.
Does the ends ever justify the means?
- Thread starter Wizard of Whatever
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes, WW2. Cologne and Dresden were bad calls but apart from that.
When it is a definite exterminate or be exterminated situation, don't let the magic "annihilation of your enemy" button fall into the hands of whichever one is the major underdog. The latter will use it and feel the decision was very warranted, afterward.
_
Это ещё иезуиты проповедовали, со своим: "цель оправдывает средства", и "все средства хороши для достижения цели". Так нам в школе рассказывали. Это зависит от той морали, которая царит на данный момент в обществе. Большевики в нашей стране в своё время цвет нации истребили, ради своего утопического коммунизма. Коммунизма не достигли, достигли деградацию в обществе. Как говорится: " благими намерениями выстлана дорога в Ад". И результат может получиться совсем не тот, что ожидался.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
How in your opinions does this apply to:
Ukraine/Russia
Israel/Islam
China/Taiwan
North Korea/South Korea
Where should the US stand.
Ukraine/Russia
Israel/Islam
China/Taiwan
North Korea/South Korea
Where should the US stand.
Каждый находится на том месте, которое может занять. Которое ему позволят занять. Как однажды метко выразился тут один пользователь, "обезьяны делят места у водопоя". Если вы думаете, что за последние несколько тысяч лет обезьяны сильно изменились, то вы сильно ошибаетесь. Ну, если только хвост отпал.
In answer to the thread question: yes.
Result = end
Process = means
???
Anyhoo... Kill one person or the world blows up. Is killing the person justified so as to save the other 8 billion on the planet?
Yes.
So that answers the thread, right?
Isn't this the same thing?
Result = end
Process = means
???
Anyhoo... Kill one person or the world blows up. Is killing the person justified so as to save the other 8 billion on the planet?
Yes.
So that answers the thread, right?
2 тысячи лет назад убили Христа, потому что еврейские священники решили, что так будет лучше для народа. Мир не меняется...In answer to the thread question: yes.
Isn't this the same thing?
Result = end
Process = means
???
Anyhoo... Kill one person or the world blows up. Is killing the person justified so as to save the other 8 billion on the planet?
Yes.
So that answers the thread, right?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
It answers it. It doesn't mean it's the correct answer.In answer to the thread question: yes.
Isn't this the same thing?
Result = end
Process = means
???
Anyhoo... Kill one person or the world blows up. Is killing the person justified so as to save the other 8 billion on the planet?
Yes.
So that answers the thread, right?
Wizard and I live but you have to die. So, killing you is justified?It becomes more complicated the more balanced the equation, but it's just a version of the "trolley problem". My response was deliberately one v all others because it speaks to the thread question directly. Specifically the "ever".It answers it. It doesn't mean it's the correct answer.
I.e. find one case where it is justified and the answer is a simple "yes".
Does it mean that other examples will be justified? No, they would have to be looked at on their merits.
Also, the question begs the further question of whose justification, exactly, is being sought? The person's who carried out the means? Everyone else's?
Some people will happily justify killing one to save a few more. Others may not. So is the question about whether at least one person can justify it to themselves, or whether it is an absolute justification, that everyone would accept?
There's also the difference between justifying the means, and actually being able to carry them out. It may be justifiable to kill one person to save many, but that doesn't mean everyone would be able to actually pull the trigger, so to speak.
Furthermore, you can go to even more trivial answers to breach the "ever": is it ever justified to walk to your destination rather than drive? Or to drive other than walk? Or to eat when you're hungry?
So, yeah, the answer is correct: "yes".
To be "no" there has to be a world where noone can ever justify their own actions. And that is trivially absurd.
Tl;Dr - the thread question is trivially phrased, and the OP, by way of contextualising the question, is unhelpful.
But I guess ymmv.
Sure, you can refute my example by not looking at my example, but I'm not sure what you think you're achieving?
Мало убить Дракона...Point taken and agreed to.
Правды. Если народом правит диктатор, который убивает собственный народ в том числе, и нападает на другие народы - тогда да, бешенных собак отстреливают. А если он никому не угрожает, не призывает никого убивать - пусть живёт как хочет.
Okay, but I'm still not sure what this has to do with what I originally said. I've mentioned nothing about killing heads of state, religious leaders, or anyone specific. My example was solely that killing one person to literally save the planet would be justified. It is one person v all people.
Killing someone because they might do something bad, or because it might be better for everyone else, I leave to individuals to justify for themselves, if they can, but it wasn't the example I used.
А если этот "один" человек - ваша мать, ваш отец, ваш сын, ваша дочь, или кто то из тех, кого вы любите больше, чем себя самого?
The justification is still there. The rest is just a matter of whether I, personally, could commit the act. I would be angry, upset, outraged, all the other painful emotions you care to think one might be, but in this example that doesn't take away the overriding justification. Things that are justified can still be emotionally painful.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Thread seems like the trolley problem, at the level of statecraft. I'd say if the Intel is solid, one can act to protect innocent lives, or ecosystems which sustain innocent lives. Stop Oswald on the sixth floor of the TX schoolbook depository and that's a little iffy. Maybe you save a million lives and the ecosystems across large areas of Vietnam...or something worse happens? That's an example of an information-poor fork in the road of history. OTOH, well, clear-cut examples are hard...is there much doubt the world would have been better sans Hitler or Stalin?
Yep. The lamest philosophical conundrum ever devised, imho. No one ever in the history of the world has been entirely consistent with their deontological/consequentialist crap. You change just one teeny little factor, and the most ardent d-ist or c-ist ever is gonna abruptly change their mind. Problem solved.