Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The End Justifies the Means

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:17:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are your thoughts on this theory? I recognize that it might be interpreted in different ways such as:

1. The final action is justifiable if it is achieves greater good than the actions leading up to it.

2. The final action is always justifiable, regardless of the actions leading up to it.

Thoughts? Any other ways of interpreting this proverb?

I can see the second one being open to a lot of exploitation as it pretty much means that everything is always moral.
The first way, as it seems, takes a more utilitarian approach.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:21:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The first interpretation is more reasonable than the second: you're right on that.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:45:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The first one is always right..

Because the justification is dependend purpose..

The second one is a contradiction:

To say something like an action is good in itself is a contradiction... for the good is the Good and and action is action ... and action may have some good.. but it could never be the good in itself.

Even to say that an action is good itself.. is just to say the action is synomous with the consequence.... anything not consequential is either ignorance or irrationall.. but the irrationall can't be justified.. beause its irrationall... to say that is justifiable is just fundementalism.. and we have to much of that already..

The Fool.... in the pool
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:51:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.

Everything is objective if mathematically calculated. The hardest point is determining values for calculation. How much do you value a human life at? How much do you value a building at? An animal? A city?.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:54:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 6:51:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.

Everything is objective if mathematically calculated. The hardest point is determining values for calculation. How much do you value a human life at?
$3.00
How much do you value a building at?
dollar fifty
An animal?
$0.25
A city?
$25,000,000,000,000
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:54:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 6:45:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The first one is always right..

Because the justification is dependend purpose..

The second one is a contradiction:

To say something like an action is good in itself is a contradiction... for the good is the Good and and action is action ... and action may have some good.. but it could never be the good in itself.

Even to say that an action is good itself.. is just to say the action is synomous with the consequence.... anything not consequential is either ignorance or irrationall.. but the irrationall can't be justified.. beause its irrationall... to say that is justifiable is just fundementalism.. and we have to much of that already..

The Fool.... in the pool

I don't think that this is what I or Machiavelli were referring to. Under the second reasoning, an action does not have to be good or bad as an entity to be moral. The action is the action but the goodness or badness of the action is completely irrelevant.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:55:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 6:54:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:51:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.

Everything is objective if mathematically calculated. The hardest point is determining values for calculation. How much do you value a human life at?
$3.00
How much do you value a building at?
dollar fifty
An animal?
$0.25
A city?
$25,000,000,000,000

That's your opinion, now get everybody else to agree with you. Everybody cannot come to a consensus of what should be valued at what.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 6:56:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 6:55:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:54:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:51:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.

Everything is objective if mathematically calculated. The hardest point is determining values for calculation. How much do you value a human life at?
$3.00
How much do you value a building at?
dollar fifty
An animal?
$0.25
A city?
$25,000,000,000,000

That's your opinion, now get everybody else to agree with you. Everybody cannot come to a consensus of what should be valued at what.

lol I was joking, but knowing you, you probably agree with those prices.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 7:14:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When I first stumbled upon this thread, I thought, "Getting revenge on that one annoying guy from middle school by plunging the world into the nuclear winter is obviously a case where the ends do not justify the means."

But, on a more serious note, I think that this is a totally subjective thing. Which means that it's left up to the system of morality that you use. Saving 10 people by murdering 1 may be a case where the end justifies the means, but a lot of people wouldn't do that because you would have to murder one person. This is just a case of different moral systems being different.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 7:24:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.

Says who?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 7:45:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 7:24:59 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.

Says who?

The BOP is on you to prove that killing 65 million people as a result of the war he started achieved some kind of greater cause.

Go ahead.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:02:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 7:24:59 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.

Says who?

Dude, no body is saying hitlers end... it was a irrational end. If he was rational and wanted to conquer lands. He should have integrated them into german/jews this would greaty increase there power.. just killing them for nonsense superstition.. is a shity means....
Not that I am justifiend conquering.. but rather his self-contradiction to his end..

At first they just wanted the Jews out.. but then they didnt know what to do with them...... they were worried of future retaliation and the figured that as a way to fix the problemmmm ....... alot of the history has been manipulated....
don't get me wrong it is one of the worse things ever in history, but we are getting a much more evil interpretation of the actual reasoning of the time..
The Germans were regular people like everyone else, but in a time of crises, he help them out, he was a great speaker(Sophist), and he appealed to thier egos.
telling them they were better, then other people.. he made them feel good about the selvs.. too much.... but most of all he got them not to THINK, and rather just believe him off FAITH>...

"it is fortunate for us in power that people do not think" Adolph Hitler.

look at his speeches he tell them to act and not think.

You could never get an honest interpretation from a Ally's interpretation..

Hitler was a Christian as well.. but they try and hide it and kick him out of the religion, like Osama .. So we don't associate it to the religion... look deep you will find it... its been edited out.. so save religious integraty..
What we know of Christianity is only what didnt' get erased, from history.

The muslim jehads in India killed more people then the holocaust.. and we never here about that do we...... its like hidden.... its like its being erased out.. .. you would be suprised how much is manipulated..

notice how we say Nazis and not Germans.. . even though it was all german based..... its to save integrety .
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everything is objective if mathematically calculated.:

So you can determine whether or not it's objectively moral to drown a cat through mathematics? Fascinating.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:04:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.

Subjectity is a cope out explanation.. and so is opinions.. if is was then we could never know what subject we are actually talking about in the first place.. so there is something about the ideas we all share......
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:05:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.:

It's all speculative if there is no absolute morality. Good/bad are very much at the discretion of each individual.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:07:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 8:04:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.

Subjectity is a cope out explanation.. and so is opinions.. if is was then we could never know what subject we are actually talking about in the first place.. so there is something about the ideas we all share......:

Well, you've proven that you have no idea what a subjective vs objective morality is. Please learn that first, and then we can pick up from there.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:10:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm sorry - is Knuckle really using Machiavelli as the basis for his fascist philosophy?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:18:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 8:05:20 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.:

It's all speculative if there is no absolute morality. Good/bad are very much at the discretion of each individual.

for example if a child comes and ask you what love is and you say its subjective.... that says nothing about what love it... Right..... be we do know more then that. We know for sure it involve positive attraction.. it is subjective(relative) to who they are attracted too.... but not what love it because then we can claim that you have no idea about what you are talking about. but you do. or we couldnt communicate it at all. It would appear to us like a random word. The reason why this subjective move is popular.. because it creates a hiding place so that we could never be wrong... when somebodies idea because shown to be false.. it is a turtling defensive position to say its a matter of opinion or subjective. that it is personal knowledge but it could never be because you could never have known how to use the word in the first place...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:21:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 8:07:22 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/29/2012 8:04:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.

Subjectity is a cope out explanation.. and so is opinions.. if is was then we could never know what subject we are actually talking about in the first place.. so there is something about the ideas we all share......:

Well, you've proven that you have no idea what a subjective vs objective morality is. Please learn that first, and then we can pick up from there.

but that is the problem of ignorance... in the sense that you don't understand what somebody else is saying it will appear to be nonsense.. but you have been Fooled.. and again COPING OUT!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:26:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 8:21:05 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 8:07:22 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/29/2012 8:04:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 6:23:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's subjective, so there is no objective value to it.

Some people say that the atomic bomb was the end that justified the means. They would argue that while an unpopular thing, it utimately saved more lives.

Others would counter that it was tantamount to the murder of innocent civilians that died because of their government, of which they had no control over.

There's no ostensibly "correct" answer in either of those philosophies. It boils down to opinion.

Subjectity is a cope out explanation.. and so is opinions.. if is was then we could never know what subject we are actually talking about in the first place.. so there is something about the ideas we all share......:

Well, you've proven that you have no idea what a subjective vs objective morality is. Please learn that first, and then we can pick up from there.

but that is the problem of ignorance... in the sense that you don't understand what somebody else is saying it will appear to be nonsense.. but you have been Fooled.. and again COPING OUT!

If you want to Debate about objective morality and subjective.. lets do it up.. I am pro for objective.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:35:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 7:45:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:24:59 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.

Says who?

The BOP is on you to prove that killing 65 million people as a result of the war he started achieved some kind of greater cause.

Go ahead.

You've got me all wrong. I'm not saying what he did was worth it, I'm saying different people have different ideas on what's moral or not. To us, there was no way it was worth it but to Hitler and most Germans, they truly believed they were working towards the greater good.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:48:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 8:35:00 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:45:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:24:59 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.

Says who?

The BOP is on you to prove that killing 65 million people as a result of the war he started achieved some kind of greater cause.

Go ahead.

You've got me all wrong. I'm not saying what he did was worth it, I'm saying different people have different ideas on what's moral or not. To us, there was no way it was worth it but to Hitler and most Germans, they truly believed they were working towards the greater good.

But I am saying he was mistaken what was the good. my position is more complex then simply the greater good. that definitly plays a role and it could be logicall proven.... yeah I said it ...

All the more reason you should accept a challenge on it.. come one you can't lose .. everybody believes you.... its all in your favour...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:07:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 8:35:00 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:45:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:24:59 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:18:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:12:15 PM, MarquisX wrote:
Consider this, when Hitler pretty much ordered the execution of 11,000,000 people, he wasn't doing it to be funny. He actually thought it would help. Did the ends justify the means then?

No, simply because the good of the final action does not outweigh the good/bad of the action leading up to it.

Says who?

The BOP is on you to prove that killing 65 million people as a result of the war he started achieved some kind of greater cause.

Go ahead.

You've got me all wrong. I'm not saying what he did was worth it, I'm saying different people have different ideas on what's moral or not. To us, there was no way it was worth it but to Hitler and most Germans, they truly believed they were working towards the greater good.

Right now, we aren't directly talking about morality. We are talking about whether or not Hitlers actions objectively justified the supposed end. From a rational viewpoint, unless someone can show me that the end was worth 65+million dead and trillions in monetary damages, it was not justified.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:08:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 8:03:31 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Everything is objective if mathematically calculated.:

So you can determine whether or not it's objectively moral to drown a cat through mathematics? Fascinating.

Theoretically, yes.
Experimentally, you must assign a lot of values which in themselves are highly subjective.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:08:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 8:10:57 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I'm sorry - is Knuckle really using Machiavelli as the basis for his fascist philosophy?

Lol what?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:12:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 9:08:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 8:10:57 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I'm sorry - is Knuckle really using Machiavelli as the basis for his fascist philosophy?

Lol what?

You mentioned something about you and Machiavelli agreeing. I'm wondering why you say that.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:13:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 9:12:02 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/29/2012 9:08:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/29/2012 8:10:57 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I'm sorry - is Knuckle really using Machiavelli as the basis for his fascist philosophy?

Lol what?

You mentioned something about you and Machiavelli agreeing. I'm wondering why you say that.

Your post implies an intrinsic negative in the concept of Machiavellianism. Elaborate please.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."