Do the ends justify the means?
Debate Rounds (2)
Take this example: A man is transported to a jungle island with nothing but a knife, a backpack, his clothes, and a Zippo lighter. He is automatically faced with a problem: how to survive. In order to survive on this island, he chooses a system of rational thinking. He picks "means justifies the ends" to guide him in his battle for survival. The man gets hungry, he needs to eat food. How should he get the food he needs? Could he start a fire on a nearby palm tree? Maybe he should draw a picture in the sand. He might want to run through the jungle or into the ocean. He does not consider the consequences of these actions as he only considers the actions themselves, "the means justifies the ends" does not work as a theory of life. The man is eventually eaten by a tiger.
Let us consider the alternate scenario: he picks "ends justifies the means". The man figures that since food is made of animals, he should find an animal so he could kill it and eat it. But wait, what if the animal is stronger than he is? Surely he must be prepared in order to not be eaten by his wild opponent. He walks quietly through the jungle and sees a sloth high up in a tree. He knows that he could not get to the sloth without climbing the tree, so he climbs the tree and kills the sloth. This was all done to serve the end result: food. He starts a fire with the lighter from some branches he collected in the jungle. He has dinner and goes to sleep in a hollow log.
Therefore, even through we do not find ourselves in the predicament that the man on the island did, we go about our everyday routine in the same way, doing things like drinking a glass of water or going to work for a reason which is the end result, instead of winding up with nothing and justifying it with the action you took- which would not make sense.
I am eager to provide quality standard arguments.
However, I am afraid your opening argument is addressed to a certain population only: naturalists.
Moral implications must deal with human affairs only. Anything else is a branch of ethics.
I propose you set a different scenario.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.