Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does the ends Justify the Means?

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:59:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you ask me, the ends never justify the means. Just because your intent is good, does not mean you have the right to do evil.

For example; say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed 200 people before finally being placed under arrested. If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:00:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The ends always justifies the means as long as the negative actions that the means cause are outweighed by the positive actions that the ends cause.
"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
2/12/2012 7:02:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If let's say that the killing of those 200 saved 300 more, then that action is obviously justified. Whether it will be punished is a whole different situation, but punishment often does not correlate with justification.
"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."
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:03:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For example; say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed 200 people before finally being placed under arrested. If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?

No. There are limits to which the ends justify the means. The guy killed 200 people who were otherwise innocent. AIDS may kill all of them, but they could benefit to society even with their disease.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:04:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:00:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The ends always justifies the means as long as the negative actions that the means cause are outweighed by the positive actions that the ends cause.

say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed every last person to contract AIDs.
He therefore, completely eliminated AIDs from the Earth, through mass murder. He saved more lives than he took because he stopped it from multiplying.

If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:05:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:02:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If let's say that the killing of those 200 saved 300 more, then that action is obviously justified. Whether it will be punished is a whole different situation, but punishment often does not correlate with justification.

But would you pardon the man, if President? You say his actions were justified, after all.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:06:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:04:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:00:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The ends always justifies the means as long as the negative actions that the means cause are outweighed by the positive actions that the ends cause.

say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed every last person to contract AIDs.
He therefore, completely eliminated AIDs from the Earth, through mass murder. He saved more lives than he took because he stopped it from multiplying.

If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?

Was his action justified? Yes.

Do his actions require punishment? Yes.

Justification=/=No Punishment
"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."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:06:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:04:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:00:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The ends always justifies the means as long as the negative actions that the means cause are outweighed by the positive actions that the ends cause.

say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed every last person to contract AIDs.
He therefore, completely eliminated AIDs from the Earth, through mass murder. He saved more lives than he took because he stopped it from multiplying.

If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?

Was his action justified? Yes.

Do his actions require punishment? Yes.

Justification=/=No Punishment

But if a crime is justified, the punishment can be waved.

Would you claim that a man who kills, to defend his family from a killer, should be punished?

Justification is the action of showing something to be right or reasonable
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

You are claiming the man was right to kill, or his motives was reasonable; so why not pardon him?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:26:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:15:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:06:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:04:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:00:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The ends always justifies the means as long as the negative actions that the means cause are outweighed by the positive actions that the ends cause.

say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed every last person to contract AIDs.
He therefore, completely eliminated AIDs from the Earth, through mass murder. He saved more lives than he took because he stopped it from multiplying.

If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?

Was his action justified? Yes.

Do his actions require punishment? Yes.

Justification=/=No Punishment

But if a crime is justified, the punishment can be waved.
The key word here is "can". Yes, it can be waved but does not necessarily have to be.
Would you claim that a man who kills, to defend his family from a killer, should be punished?
Perhaps, perhaps not. That is irrelevant.
Justification is the action of showing something to be right or reasonable
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

You are claiming the man was right to kill, or his motives was reasonable; so why not pardon him?

Because pardoning him shows that it is okay to kill, which it obviously is not regardless of the justification.
"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."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:44:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:59:12 PM, DanT wrote:
If you ask me, the ends never justify the means. Just because your intent is good, does not mean you have the right to do evil.

Firstly:
EEEVIL!!!

Secondly:
Means are actions.
The only reason to act is to serve ends.

If Means are justified... it is ALWAYS ends that justified them.

Thing is... sometimes particular means have both good and bad ends.
Then it's a matter of deciding the best means to employ to get to the best totality of ends possible.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:46:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 6:59:12 PM, DanT wrote:
If you ask me, the ends never justify the means.

Suppose I pretended to forget my mother's birthday, thus causing her considerable distress, in order to surprise her later with a party?

Just because your intent is good, does not mean you have the right to do evil.


Both good and bad are subjective and require value judgements. Obviously we would prefer the good outweighs the bad. Most research is based on this--minimizing risk and maximizing benefit. If we agree with you and that the ends never justify the means, we would never do anything and society would never progress.

For example; say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed 200 people before finally being placed under arrested. If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?

There are plenty of scenarios where the good in the ends would far outweigh the bad in the means.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:08:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:46:08 PM, nonentity wrote:

There are plenty of scenarios where the good in the ends would far outweigh the bad in the means.

Give me one example.

Let me explain.

If your ends were to surprise your mother with a party for her birthday, then the most moral and ethical means to do that would be to engage that in the best way possible. So, you consider all of the potential ways that you can go about doing this and, hypothetically, you narrow it down to three that are within your capacity and interest. These are:

1. Disappearing three days beforehand without telling her a thing. Just as panic sets in and she files her first of many missing person reports, then turns your world upside down contacting everyone you know looking for you, you appear out of nowhere and surprise her with all of her friends and family.

2. The day before, you call her a deceitful, hateful, erroneous btch and claim that yu never want to speak to her again. Then, while she's distraught and confused, break through her door using a farm vehicle, with everyone she knows in tow.

3. Pretend as though you forgot her birthday on the day of, then surprise her when she least expects it.

Clearly, the most moral thing to do here is the third, although the first and second would achieve the same ends. Does that mean that the first and second are equally justifiable? Of course not, because they're irrational. What does this mean? Of course -- that ends and means must be justifiable within their own right.

Good intentions is not tantamount to good behavior.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:17:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:08:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:46:08 PM, nonentity wrote:

There are plenty of scenarios where the good in the ends would far outweigh the bad in the means.

Give me one example.

Let me explain.

If your ends were to surprise your mother with a party for her birthday, then the most moral and ethical means to do that would be to engage that in the best way possible.

By best way possible.. I presume you mean landing you with the best totality of ends? o.O

So, you consider all of the potential ways that you can go about doing this and, hypothetically, you narrow it down to three that are within your capacity and interest. These are:

1. Disappearing three days beforehand without telling her a thing. Just as panic sets in and she files her first of many missing person reports, then turns your world upside down contacting everyone you know looking for you, you appear out of nowhere and surprise her with all of her friends and family.
End1: terrify your mother
End2: terrify your friends
End3: wastes cops time
End4: SURPRISE!

2. The day before, you call her a deceitful, hateful, erroneous btch and claim that yu never want to speak to her again. Then, while she's distraught and confused, break through her door using a farm vehicle, with everyone she knows in tow.
End1: Destroy relationship with mother
End2: Destroy House
End3: SURPRISE!

3. Pretend as though you forgot her birthday on the day of, then surprise her when she least expects it.
End1: sad momma
End2: SURPRISE! (excited/happy momma)

Clearly, the most moral thing to do here is the third,
Agreed!
although the first and second would achieve the same ends.
Ummm... no.

The other 2 scenarios land you with lots of troubling things..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:22:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:08:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:46:08 PM, nonentity wrote:

There are plenty of scenarios where the good in the ends would far outweigh the bad in the means.

Give me one example.

Let me explain.

If your ends were to surprise your mother with a party for her birthday, then the most moral and ethical means to do that would be to engage that in the best way possible. So, you consider all of the potential ways that you can go about doing this and, hypothetically, you narrow it down to three that are within your capacity and interest. These are:

1. Disappearing three days beforehand without telling her a thing. Just as panic sets in and she files her first of many missing person reports, then turns your world upside down contacting everyone you know looking for you, you appear out of nowhere and surprise her with all of her friends and family.

2. The day before, you call her a deceitful, hateful, erroneous btch and claim that yu never want to speak to her again. Then, while she's distraught and confused, break through her door using a farm vehicle, with everyone she knows in tow.

3. Pretend as though you forgot her birthday on the day of, then surprise her when she least expects it.

Clearly, the most moral thing to do here is the third, although the first and second would achieve the same ends. Does that mean that the first and second are equally justifiable? Of course not, because they're irrational. What does this mean? Of course -- that ends and means must be justifiable within their own right.

Good intentions is not tantamount to good behavior.

You agree the third scenario is acceptable, and yet according to the OP, the ends never justify the means. Clearly, that is not the case... I don't know where I said other things would be equally justifiable. I said they require value judgements.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:26:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:17:52 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

By best way possible.. I presume you mean landing you with the best totality of ends? o.O

No, I mean in the best way possible.

So, here, are you suggesting that what you do is defined by its effect?

Let's say you delay coming home to your wife, because you decided to help a blind old lady cross the street. Your cellphone is dead. Let's say it sets you back fifteen minutes. In those fifteen minutes, someone rapes and kills your wife. If you did not help this blind old lady cross the street, you could have conceivably prevented it. Was walking that blind old lady across the street immoral?

1. Disappearing three days beforehand without telling her a thing. Just as panic sets in and she files her first of many missing person reports, then turns your world upside down contacting everyone you know looking for you, you appear out of nowhere and surprise her with all of her friends and family.
End1: terrify your mother
End2: terrify your friends
End3: wastes cops time
End4: SURPRISE!

2. The day before, you call her a deceitful, hateful, erroneous btch and claim that yu never want to speak to her again. Then, while she's distraught and confused, break through her door using a farm vehicle, with everyone she knows in tow.
End1: Destroy relationship with mother
End2: Destroy House
End3: SURPRISE!

3. Pretend as though you forgot her birthday on the day of, then surprise her when she least expects it.
End1: sad momma
End2: SURPRISE! (excited/happy momma)

Clearly, the most moral thing to do here is the third,
Agreed!
although the first and second would achieve the same ends.
Ummm... no.

Lol, as written by you (emphasis added), clearly, yes they do.

The other 2 scenarios land you with lots of troubling things..

Sure they would, but they are collateral. Are you saying that you must somehow determine every possible consequence of your actions if they are to be considered correct?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:29:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:22:41 PM, nonentity wrote:

You agree the third scenario is acceptable, and yet according to the OP, the ends never justify the means. Clearly, that is not the case... I don't know where I said other things would be equally justifiable. I said they require value judgements.

What requires value judgments? The things you do?

Why wouldn't you simply rationalize it with the ends of those actions, rather than applying value judgments?

That's the thing. I agree -- the ends never justify the means. They may quantify them, they may rationalize them, but they never justify them. The means must be justifiable with or without ends.

That is why you consider only one of those options acceptable, and that's why I agree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:33:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:46:08 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/12/2012 6:59:12 PM, DanT wrote:
If you ask me, the ends never justify the means.

Suppose I pretended to forget my mother's birthday, thus causing her considerable distress, in order to surprise her later with a party?


I know many people who have had surprise parties; all of them hated it, because of the method.
One of those people is actually my mother.

Just because your intent is good, does not mean you have the right to do evil.


Both good and bad are subjective and require value judgements.

True, but the ends does not make the means good.

Obviously we would prefer the good outweighs the bad. Most research is based on this--minimizing risk and maximizing benefit. If we agree with you and that the ends never justify the means, we would never do anything and society would never progress.


not true.

Ends: a final part of something
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Justify: show or prove to be right or reasonable
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Means: a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Thus the phrase "the ends justify the means" means "the Final part proves the procedure reasonable".

This is not true.

Say one takes a risk, and invests his company' money in developing a new product, to reap the reward; that is justified.

Say his company did not have the money to invest, but he invested it anyways, putting thousands of workers job's on the line, and risking the company's total collapse; that is not justified, because he is gambling with people's livelihood.

The Means is only justified by the means, and the ends is justified by the ends.

For example; say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed 200 people before finally being placed under arrested. If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?

There are plenty of scenarios where the good in the ends would far outweigh the bad in the means.

But does that make the means justified? No it does not.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 7:26:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:15:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:06:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:04:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2012 7:00:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The ends always justifies the means as long as the negative actions that the means cause are outweighed by the positive actions that the ends cause.

say there was a serial killer, who targeted people with AIDs, in order to stop the spread of AIDS. Say he killed every last person to contract AIDs.
He therefore, completely eliminated AIDs from the Earth, through mass murder. He saved more lives than he took because he stopped it from multiplying.

If President, would you pardon the man, or let him swing?

Was his action justified? Yes.

Do his actions require punishment? Yes.

Justification=/=No Punishment

But if a crime is justified, the punishment can be waved.
The key word here is "can". Yes, it can be waved but does not necessarily have to be.
Would you claim that a man who kills, to defend his family from a killer, should be punished?
Perhaps, perhaps not. That is irrelevant.
Justification is the action of showing something to be right or reasonable
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

You are claiming the man was right to kill, or his motives was reasonable; so why not pardon him?

Because pardoning him shows that it is okay to kill, which it obviously is not regardless of the justification.

If it's not OK to kill, than the means is not justified. I see you are one of those people who likes talking in circles.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:35:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:29:17 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/12/2012 8:22:41 PM, nonentity wrote:

You agree the third scenario is acceptable, and yet according to the OP, the ends never justify the means. Clearly, that is not the case... I don't know where I said other things would be equally justifiable. I said they require value judgements.

What requires value judgments? The things you do?


The things you do and the effect the things you do have.

Why wouldn't you simply rationalize it with the ends of those actions, rather than applying value judgments?


Rationalize what? The means?

That's the thing. I agree -- the ends never justify the means. They may quantify them, they may rationalize them, but they never justify them. The means must be justifiable with or without ends.


If something is 'wrong' in some cases, what makes it "right" is the ends.

That is why you consider only one of those options acceptable, and that's why I agree.

In that example, the means is lying. Using my value judgements, I would come to the conclusion that lying is a bad thing. What makes lying in this situation 'right' is the ends (ie. making my mother happy on her birthday).
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:39:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:35:44 PM, nonentity wrote:

The things you do and the effect the things you do have.

Why the things that you do? Why not only their effects?

Why wouldn't you simply rationalize it with the ends of those actions, rather than applying value judgments?


Rationalize what? The means?

That's the thing. I agree -- the ends never justify the means. They may quantify them, they may rationalize them, but they never justify them. The means must be justifiable with or without ends.


If something is 'wrong' in some cases, what makes it "right" is the ends.

So, if you had a brother, and someone killed him, you'd totally understand if that person explained that your brother made him or her uncomfortable?

That is why you consider only one of those options acceptable, and that's why I agree.

In that example, the means is lying. Using my value judgements, I would come to the conclusion that lying is a bad thing. What makes lying in this situation 'right' is the ends (ie. making my mother happy on her birthday).

Lying, when applied successfully, always has advantageous results.

If the ends justify the means, then why is lying wrong?
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:48:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:33:29 PM, DanT wrote:

I know many people who have had surprise parties; all of them hated it, because of the method.
One of those people is actually my mother.


That honestly sucks, but again, it would depend on a value judgement. In some cases the ends don't justify the means (and people don't like surprise parties). In some cases it does.


True, but the ends does not make the means good.


Sometimes it does. If you look at medical research, various drugs have to be tested on people. Those drugs have side effects and the people who volunteer to participate are aware of the risks. Risk is minimized as much as possible in drug-related research. But by itself, giving people drugs who don't need them, with no end, would be considered a bad thing. What makes it "justified" is that the research leads to an end.

Obviously we would prefer the good outweighs the bad. Most research is based on this--minimizing risk and maximizing benefit. If we agree with you and that the ends never justify the means, we would never do anything and society would never progress.


not true.

Ends: a final part of something
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Justify: show or prove to be right or reasonable
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Means: a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Thus the phrase "the ends justify the means" means "the Final part proves the procedure reasonable".

This is not true.

Say one takes a risk, and invests his company' money in developing a new product, to reap the reward; that is justified.


I agree. The means alone, taking the company's money, cannot justify itself. It is the ends, the intention to invest it, that justifies taking the company's money.

Say his company did not have the money to invest, but he invested it anyways, putting thousands of workers job's on the line, and risking the company's total collapse; that is not justified, because he is gambling with people's livelihood.

The Means is only justified by the means, and the ends is justified by the ends.


If it is not justified, it means that the benefit of the ends did not outweigh the risk of the means.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:55:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:39:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/12/2012 8:35:44 PM, nonentity wrote:

The things you do and the effect the things you do have.

Why the things that you do? Why not only their effects?


I'm looking at this in terms of a cost/benefit analysis. If the things you do are the means and the effect it has are the ends, and the benefit of the means is -1 while the benefit of the ends is +5, you're left with a value of +4. I would say in that situation the ends justify the means. If you only look at the effects, and the benefit of the ends is +5 and the benefit of the means is -5, you're left with 0 benefit. Same benefit in the effects, but different benefit in the means, means overall different benefit.


If something is 'wrong' in some cases, what makes it "right" is the ends.

So, if you had a brother, and someone killed him, you'd totally understand if that person explained that your brother made him or her uncomfortable?


I'm not saying all ends make means right. That's where I think you're misunderstanding me. As I said, it is a cost/benefit analysis. If I cared about my brother, the cost of losing him would be much greater than the cost of someone's comfort.


Lying, when applied successfully, always has advantageous results.

If the ends justify the means, then why is lying wrong?

It wouldn't be... Big "if" though.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:59:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:26:47 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/12/2012 8:17:52 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

By best way possible.. I presume you mean landing you with the best totality of ends? o.O

No, I mean in the best way possible.

So, here, are you suggesting that what you do is defined by its effect?

I'm suggesting that you pursue that course of action which you forsee ending with the best possible results.

Let's say you delay coming home to your wife, because you decided to help a blind old lady cross the street. Your cellphone is dead. Let's say it sets you back fifteen minutes. In those fifteen minutes, someone rapes and kills your wife. If you did not help this blind old lady cross the street, you could have conceivably prevented it. Was walking that blind old lady across the street immoral?

determining what you should do in a situation is dependent upon your understanding of the situation. Given what you know you weigh out the possibilities of possible, and more assured, drawbacks and benefits of certain actions. And you choose that which seems most likely to end in the best results.

Later, upon gaining knew knowledge, you might wish you acted differently.. But so long as you carefully considered and your course of action at the time.. and chose an action according to what you most cared about..
You could hardly said that you, knowing what you knew at the time, should have acted differently.

Looking back you might wish you got home and stood next to the door with a baseball bat.. but, at the time, there was no plausible reason to do that.. so you could hardly say that's what you should've done (given what you knew).

Should's are ALWAYS dependent upon/inseparable from a given perspective... A perspective which includes an understanding of how things are.. and value-judgments regarding the worth of things.

1. Disappearing three days beforehand without telling her a thing. Just as panic sets in and she files her first of many missing person reports, then turns your world upside down contacting everyone you know looking for you, you appear out of nowhere and surprise her with all of her friends and family.
End1: terrify your mother
End2: terrify your friends
End3: wastes cops time
End4: SURPRISE!

2. The day before, you call her a deceitful, hateful, erroneous btch and claim that yu never want to speak to her again. Then, while she's distraught and confused, break through her door using a farm vehicle, with everyone she knows in tow.
End1: Destroy relationship with mother
End2: Destroy House
End3: SURPRISE!

3. Pretend as though you forgot her birthday on the day of, then surprise her when she least expects it.
End1: sad momma
End2: SURPRISE! (excited/happy momma)

Clearly, the most moral thing to do here is the third,
Agreed!
although the first and second would achieve the same ends.
Ummm... no.

Lol, as written by you (emphasis added), clearly, yes they do.

The first and second achieve some of the same ends... but they don't end the same generally.

The other 2 scenarios land you with lots of troubling things..

Sure they would, but they are collateral. Are you saying that you must somehow determine every possible consequence of your actions if they are to be considered correct?

I didn't say anything about "correct"... however the more you can troubleshoot what the various consequences of any given action will be.. The better you can figure out which course of action will furnish you with the best results... you should employ those means which will get you the best results.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:08:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Remember that the Allies stopped Hitler, but also bombed the hell out of cities.
Remember that the Soviet Union stopped Hitler, but also went on a raid an rapped Berlin's women.

Ends always justify means.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:09:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 9:08:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Ends always justify means.

Not always...

but if the means are justified... Ends did it!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:10:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 9:08:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Remember that the Allies stopped Hitler, but also bombed the hell out of cities.
Remember that the Soviet Union stopped Hitler, but also went on a raid an rapped Berlin's women.

Ends always justify means.

You're justifying the rape of thousands of German women by Soviet soldiers as ends justifying means? Am I getting this right?
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:13:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 9:09:22 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/12/2012 9:08:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Ends always justify means.

Not always...

but if the means are justified... Ends did it!

This.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:13:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 9:10:45 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/12/2012 9:08:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Remember that the Allies stopped Hitler, but also bombed the hell out of cities.
Remember that the Soviet Union stopped Hitler, but also went on a raid an rapped Berlin's women.

Ends always justify means.

You're justifying the rape of thousands of German women by Soviet soldiers as ends justifying means? Am I getting this right?

Yes because the end was Hitler's death. Hitler killed over 6 million people vs. the fact that only thousands of women were rapped in Berlin. I think it was right to defeat Hitler.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 9:46:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 9:13:05 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 2/12/2012 9:10:45 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 2/12/2012 9:08:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Remember that the Allies stopped Hitler, but also bombed the hell out of cities.
Remember that the Soviet Union stopped Hitler, but also went on a raid an rapped Berlin's women.

Ends always justify means.

You're justifying the rape of thousands of German women by Soviet soldiers as ends justifying means? Am I getting this right?

Yes because the end was Hitler's death. Hitler killed over 6 million people vs. the fact that only thousands of women were rapped in Berlin. I think it was right to defeat Hitler.

Oooohhh, so the mass rape of German women resulted in Hitler's death! Hitler's death was the final end of that escapade, and of course the Soviets were in the right to do it because they were avenging the Holocaust.

You're quite the historian.