CategoriesCasual Discussions Users List Who is Online

Does the end justify the means?

6 years ago
Freshman
Offline
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 414
Sophocles wrote "The end excuses any evil". What do you think? Is it okay to aim for positive results using methods that, by most people's standards, would be considered evil?
6 years ago
Hikikomori
Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 29
I think the true question is about, finding the root source of the problem.

If the root source is identified, which means that the problem would be solved, and the solution would cause more relief than the current pain, i would agree with it. So if killing one people, would save another 10, i would do it. But what if killing would not solve it ? them it would be a question of having a balance between trying to not make things worst, and having a plan for a long term solution. I would kill that person, to not make things worst for more people, but i would try to kill as less as possible, since the root problem, is something else at long term like the enviroriment.
6 years ago
Freshman
Offline
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 414
Really? You would be able to kill someone without any hesitation? Even if you knew that is for saving 10 more people, are you really capable of that? And what if the sum of all the great things that one person would of done would have been greater than the sum of those ten?
6 years ago
Hikikomori
Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 29
Ishimaru said:
Really? You would be able to kill someone without any hesitation? Even if you knew that is for saving 10 more people, are you really capable of that? And what if the sum of all the great things that one person would of done would have been greater than the sum of those ten?


Rationally, i think is the best option, emotionally i never killed anyone, so i have no idea how it would be. But think on the following situation, there is someone that invaded your house, and will kill your family, rationally, will you not try to kill him first ?

And about your "what if" question, everything can be put in a different what if, what i answered is, the ends justify the means depending on the situations. If is considered that the pain of the life of one people, will save the life of others, why not ?. Who will decide, how it would be decided, is another kind of discussion and argument, that does not relate with the question at all.

Globally speaking, any answer for any problem that is too much static, is flawed by nature, since everything is changing, and everything changes.
6 years ago
Freshman
Offline
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 35
Ishimaru said:
Really? You would be able to kill someone without any hesitation? Even if you knew that is for saving 10 more people, are you really capable of that? And what if the sum of all the great things that one person would of done would have been greater than the sum of those ten?
This isn't actually related but....
Kudo Shinichi said:
Is a reason necessary? I don't know why you would kill someone, But as for saving someone...a logical mind isn't needed, right?

pirondi said:
Globally speaking, any answer for any problem that is too much static, is flawed by nature, since everything is changing, and everything changes.
AGREED.

Anyhow, if you find something that does not change, spread the word!
SPREAD THE WORD!
SPOILER (show)
Though they say that change does not change?
Modified by Ichigo_gyunyu, 6 years ago
6 years ago
Freshman
Offline
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 414
Ichigo_gyunyu said:
SPOILER (show)
Though they say that change does not change?

They do? It's one of those "never say never" paradoxes. xD
5 years ago
The Mad Philosopher
Offline
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 374
Well I stumbled upon this thread so I wanted to say something, I mean I'll just post 2 quotes that should tell you my point of view.
pirondi said:
So if killing one people, would save another 10, i would do it.


"Lives are never of equal value. There is always a ranking order."
"At times the life of a single man is worth more than that of a million." Heh...


And to answer the quote "The end excuses any evil." I would tell that the quote it's completely wrong? Because the end just won't excuse "ANY" evil. It depends, as everything... Everything is variable... nothing is constant, not even our laws, our morality, humanity?... There is no objective truth here, there is only 'our truth', the subjective one... So I may not know if the end really excuses any evil... Sometimes it does, sometimes it won't.
Our ethics are subjective too, I may say that killing is wrong while someone tells me killing is right. There is no true definition for what's right and wrong.

If you google "define right" and keep defining the definition you'll eventually get to 'define reality'(because the truth is according to reality... I may tell that that it's not entirely true).
You'll get "The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." so then let's define Existence..."The fact or state of living or having objective reality.".
The thing is there is no reality, it's just 'our' reality we TRY live in... The way we wish for this world to be. But it's never like that...

"We're able to obscure reality according to our obsessions. We're never actually shown what reality is. In this case, the reality that you speak of is a half-baked nonsense that has been altered. Trying to conform this bullshit reality into the one you want is like trying to join two pieces of a puzzle that do not fit."

Sophocles' reality was just his half-baked nonsense as well as ours, so I have no idea if the end excuses 'any' evil. For me it won't, not just any evil, there are some things more terrible than the "righteous" end could excuse.



^It's all just blabber... Moving from a subject to another and then back to it with such courtesy that... Even I amaze myself.
Modified by Tigrex22, 5 years ago



You have to be signed in to post on the forums.