Does the end justify the means?

Apophis wrote: 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.

The captain of the ship is in a position of responsibility for the crew and passengers. As a duty of that role he is required to protect them, and so he should do the most humane thing possible to stop the actions of the murderer. It is not his individual respsonsibility, it is the responsibility of the duty a captain has, as required by government licensing to operate such a service.

I disagree with it being his duty. He could have disabled the man and tied/locked him up. Instead he decided to end his existence. Big difference. The idea of imprisoning a man is not highly looked upon in that culture, if I remember correctly? I'm not sure though, do not quote me.

In my opinion, he ended both the man's suffering and negated the karmic debt of a murder on many hands by compassionately and respectfully causing his decease. Ending him allowed him to be reincarnated and try again, basically. I think I've got the belief system correct for reincarnation.

Don't mind my confusion, just woke up.

Mtfbwya, off to job 2!

Sana wrote: I disagree with it being his duty. He could have disabled the man and tied/locked him up. Instead he decided to end his existence. Big difference. The idea of imprisoning a man is not highly looked upon in that culture, if I remember correctly? I'm not sure though, do not quote me.

In my opinion, he ended both the man's suffering and negated the karmic debt of a murder on many hands by compassionately and respectfully causing his decease. Ending him allowed him to be reincarnated and try again, basically. I think I've got the belief system correct for reincarnation.

Don't mind my confusion, just woke up.

Mtfbwya, off to job 2!

I didnt mean to infer kill him in a humane way, I meant deal with him in a the most humane way in line with his duty to protect the ship, crew and passenger. A definition of humane is "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people" so I'd agree you'd be trying to talk him out of it, restrain him, or the Star Wars approach of Sun_djem !!

Since the original scenario involved killing, my reply was also outlining that the responsibility lies with the duty position more then the individual in that scenario which can be an issue when dealing with trauma... understanding why and if you might have done the right thing.

No matter what senario...The only murder, the only unjust person is you.
You possess the thought of murder and judgement.
You will make a decision, and you know people will die.

May The Force be with you,


Knowledge and defense, no crime has been committed, a shot at redemption only takes a second.

It's not exactly what we are talking about here, but you probably get the idea.

I want to believe there's always a different, better way. And if not - don't we all agree that it's situational? There are no rules for such decisions.

I didnt mean to infer kill him in a humane way, I meant deal with him in a the most humane way in line with his duty to protect the ship, crew and passenger. A definition of humane is "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people" so I'd agree you'd be trying to talk him out of it, restrain him, or the Star Wars approach of Sun_djem !!

Since the original scenario involved killing, my reply was also outlining that the responsibility lies with the duty position more then the individual in that scenario which can be an issue when dealing with trauma... understanding why and if you might have done the right thing.

Actually, no. I understand and agree completely with the idea of putting the poor bloke out of his misery. In many situations, I try to dissipate the negativity creating the situation, yes, whether by means of manipulation of circumstances or affecting the thought process of the person. However, when one is driven to massacre, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with them.

To release his spirit for another chance, that is a greater kindness.

The end always justifies the means... The problem is, at the time the "means" are used, there is no knowledge of what the "end" will be, only hope, based on not-necessarily-correct calculations. And there's invariably "something I didn't think about" too that screws everything up.

By convincing someone not to have an abortion, you could be doing humanity a great disservice. Killing 500 passengers to save one man from becoming a mass murderer may not be ideal if the purpose was to save lives.

All that matters is what the goal or "end" is and whether the means will actually get you there.

Oh! I like that answer! Thank you Master Ren!

"Always Act With Intention"
Should definitely be a guideline.

With an infinite amount of choices available for every situation, how will we ever be sure our means will be correct for the desired end result? If we are to involve ourselves in the lives of others, in a moment of time that we can never retrieve, what are the criteria for making a decision that will have a ripple effect on the universe for the rest of time? Ask yourself if you truly know what it means to justify, and if the means is your decision to make.

By asking these questions now, we will realize that in a moment’s notice there is no way in which we can be sure that the decisions we make will ever be the right one. So we must train ourselves to be thoughtful, compassionate, and ever vigilant in the face of the unlimited situations that will face us.

No matter what the situation is or no matter what the consequences are, once the choice is made and the act committed we cannot recall the “bullet”. If you have made a decision based on facts with compassion, mercy, and sound reasoning, you should not dwell on the end no matter what the results are. This will lead to fear and despair to the effect that you will not be able to make a decision without second guessing yourself. In this moment of uncertainty you will truly make the un-intelligent choice.

The fact that you asked the question of whether the end justifies the means is a testament to your continued quest for knowledge and your compassion for your fellow humans. Someone will suffer at some point in your life by a decision that you have made. If I have read the Buddha stories correctly, it is in the suffering that we find our compassion, and in that, we learn!




“Life is suffering.”

“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.”

“Teach this triple truth to all: A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity.”

Buddha

As has beeen said, try to do no harm... The intention, and excecution, of an action, for the attainment of a goal, should be as riddled with good intention as possible...

Or as I tell my children, and advice to my friends...

Make the best decision possible, with the information available at the time...

Cause really, it's all we can do... I think...