Does the end justify the means?

Can we do anything to get the result you want, regardless of legality, fairness, morality, truthfullness... ? Is the morality of an action judged solely on the outcome of that action and not the action itself? A deontologist would say lying/killing is always bad. A consequentialist would say that it is ok if the outcome is positive. It can involve illegal activities and what some would consider immoral methods, but definitely is not based on that.

This question is one which can be considered on two levels, one the personal the second the social. On a personal personal level its ethics become very questionable, and on a social one in the case of governments for example cruelty inflicted upon the populace increases proportionally the possibility of rebellion. Yet we all know that laws, decrees, rulings and the such are carpet decisions that affect various groups in a society in different ways.

"Has somebody been reading Machiavelli?"
I reckon I kind of fall into the consequentialist category. I believe that the ends justifies the means to a certain degree. I find that sometimes there is a need to break rules; if we did not none of us would be here. My view is that almost everything is situational. As long as nobody comes to any harm then do what you will.

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

I agree that it is all situational. Tough love? Racial Cleansing?

It depends on what you deem as an adequate 'end' that you are trying to achieve.

I personally am one for integrity. The morality of both situations should be the same. If you wish to help people, achieve that without resorting to immoral means.

Think of the means as a foundation of your actions. Means are the why. 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' if the means are rotten then your ends are a lie.

I generally also fall into the situational category. In my mind, its largely a three-way balance of the necessity of an action, the good it causes and the suffering it could cause.

An action that is necessary, and causes less suffering than good, could be called a "benevolent action".

One that produces more suffering, a "malevolent action". But if the need were great enough, perhaps it could still be tolerated. For example, a surgeon might amputate all the limbs of a patient to save them from death. This causes (probably) more suffering than good, but it is a necessary action.

And of course, an action that causes suffering without need could be termed "evil". Such actions I would think should be avoided.

Of course, the issue with such an outlook is its dependency on the situational judgement of an individual. It is by no means perfect, but this logic does a good job guiding my own actions.

So, yes, the end "can" justify the means, if that end is worthy. At least in my opinion.

This reminds me of that movie! The one where the person is offered a million dollars for pushing a button, but the consequence is that it kills someone you do not know...

I am of two minds, because honestly, I have lived by "Harm None" for a while, but it just isn't possible. By the "Harm None" ethical standard, pretty much everything we do is wrong, if you think of it. I see Harm none in a different way than most, I guess. It does not just mean "as long as no person is hurt", it also means "as long as (The Planet) (Yourself) (The Divinity) is not hurt. I think it is near impossible for any person who has not devoted their life to such a path as they grow their own food and do not use a car/electronics/drink alcohol/etc.

While "Harm None" is the ETHICAL way, and is looked upon kindly, I can think of reasons I would see the end justifying the means. Sometimes in an unpopular fashion. It just isn't possible to not harm anyone. I tried that many times and it always ended in sorrows.

>>On a personal level..
As with the other responses, it is situational, but I think I'm thinking in a broader sense. If it only hurts yourself, and/or you do not care about the karmic affects, go for it, do as you please and to hell with any and everyone else. I'm from a family that preserves the individual before the whole. I despise it, so I learned to act the opposite way, giving before taking. But I can see where taking has gotten them, and let me tell you, its gotten them far in the terms of materialistic goals. I think it depends on the person's priorities. There seems to be a choice lately, excel amazingly at your career, or be a human being.

>>On a social level..
I dislike the fact, but in the end there are times you have to side with the darkness to bring forth light. I dislike the idea of the death penalty, but I also dislike the idea of having to pay to keep people alive and cared for when they are not supporting themselves sitting in our prisons. I dislike the idea of America being in debt, but I also dislike the idea of the drama and suffering that would come if we were to go bankrupt. I dislike the idea of Eminent Domain but I see the need for it as more roadways are required to continue growth. I dislike the way forests and natural areas are destroyed for human gain, but I cannot fault a person for it.

I don't know. I think it is above any one person to make a judgement on this. It is a moral decision each individual person must make on their own.

definately situational...it's the whole "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't" thing.

sometimes yes the end result is justified by the course of action taken, sometimes no. whoever has to make that decision is the one that must shoulder the burden. good or bad

The following story came to mind whilst thinking about this topic. It is a story known throughout northern Buddhism. Communists even used it to rouse Chinese Buddhists to fight in Korea. The Buddha, in a past life as a ship's captain named Super Compassionate, discovered a criminal on board who intended to kill the 500 passengers. If he told the passengers, they would panic and become killers themselves, as happened on a Southwest Airlines flight in 2000. With no other way out, he compassionately stabbed the criminal to death. Captain Compassionate saved the passengers not only from murder, but from becoming murderers themselves. Unlike him, they would have killed in rage and suffered hell. He saved the criminal from becoming a mass murderer and even worse suffering. He himself generated vast karmic merit by acting with compassion. In this story it seems to be the motivation which justified the means which justified the end. We should be careful as to what we think to understand to be an end justified by its means.

RyuJin wrote: definately situational...it's the whole "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't" thing.

sometimes yes the end result is justified by the course of action taken, sometimes no. whoever has to make that decision is the one that must shoulder the burden. good or bad

Yes, taking responsibility for actions. If you're going to preach situational ethics, then that's an important point. I'm glad somebody thought to mention it.

Apophis wrote: Captain Compassionate saved the passengers not only from murder, but from becoming murderers themselves. Unlike him, they would have killed in rage and suffered hell. He saved the criminal from becoming a mass murderer and even worse suffering. He himself generated vast karmic merit by acting with compassion. In this story it seems to be the motivation which justified the means which justified the end. We should be careful as to what we think to understand to be an end justified by its means.

I couldn't find a way to word that idea.

Some people do things we would think of as horrendous with a different outlook on them, and since we were not with the person at that time / we cannot know another's mind and heart with ease, we cannot say whether it was a justifiable thought that caused it.

Sheesh now I am wondering who is going to go out and stab someone and say it was with "compassion".

Sigh.

It cannot exist as a rule either way because it covers way too many possible scenarios. Individually, it can occur in two generic ways perhaps;

1. intervention into an existing causality

In this situation I consider an existing arrangement of responsibility exists between participants, and so anything I do will be only to help, and never to hurt. It may mean I save less but unless the circumstances are fully understood I am not in a position to make judgements causing death - to take on the responsibility from others when I'm not involved and may not fully understand what is going on.... so its just help as many without hurting any and let those responsible remain responsible.

2. creating a causality

If I have created a situation where others are going to be hurt which cannot be resolved fully, but I am able to shape the result to minimize the hurt, then I am already integral to the chain of causality and so it becomes situational. Not a good situation to have created and the decisions made represent the responsibility you are accepting. It will involve judgements which depend on the level of knowledge about who and what is happening.

I apply the same rules more broadly to social decision making such as governments. It might be good to remember that pain and suffering is relative, in many cases can represent change and not some concept of failure or destruction. Governments by definition are to govern which means control and to control something means to shape its course against deviating infleunces. The nature of democracy is that the people choose who governs based on their position on the course that needs to be taken. Specialization is fundamental to complex societies and so while people give trust to that elected government to control society they also retain the ability to control government if its control is abused.