Not quite sure if this is gonna make sense, but here we go. If i were to put a policy in place that would help everyone as a whole in the best way. Depending on how powerful a person is, ordering a hit on anyone that opposes that policy ultimately still saves everyone.
The assassination of threats is the only way one can completely ensure the safety and well-being of others as well as himself. If someone had killed some people that you loved, and you had an opportunity to kill them before they hurt anyone else, would you? Of course, unless you are unwilling to sacrifice one life for the saving of many. Where's the logic in that? The qualifications for being 'undesirable' should be based on pure logic and reason only. Those that kill and deliberately harm others on a daily basis should be included in this group, for example.
As much as I want to believe that the assassination of undesirables such as Osama bin laden are justified I can not condone the act. If i say it is ok to kill someone just because most everyone hates him makes it just as ok for someone o have me killed if a majority hates me.
The ends are only justified by the means when the end is the ultimate moral correctness and the means correlate with the just end. Though as individuals, the means may be morally wrong, when performed for the benefit of the just end, the means can earn their moral correctness. T
People like Bin Laden are of no use to us. The only good thing that desert bum did is drop dead full of lead. If he had the chance he would kill every single one of us. I don't see why anyone would be too sissified to slice him in half. If you wouldn't kill him you must not like being alive. It's time to wise up. Putting him in prison would be a mistake. As long as he is alive (which he is not) his henchmen have their morale up. Whack him and they learn it doesn't pay to attack us. Kill as many enemies as you can to keep their morale down.
Killing those who have proven to cause innocent people harm, is simply a way of protecting the law abiding citizens who are put in danger because of the people who are criminals. The end justifies the means, is a way of saying is the " bad " justified by the " good. " In this case the bad is that life, one that causes people harm, will be killed, and good is that one or perhaps several inoccent lives will be saved. It is clear that the ends do intact justify the means
Sometimes, the unpleasant reality is that a desired outcome requires some questionable tactics to achieve completion. The phrase, "the end justifies the means", is the Machiavellian principle from The Prince, that is sometimes utilized to explain unsavory situations. A classic example from today's headlines would be the death of Osama bin Laden, which had all the markings of a government sanctioned assassination. Bin Laden had threatened the United States for decades and, after failing to track him down by internationally sanctioned methods, the U.S. government opted to send an undercover operation to kill him. Although the White House presented the operation as "resisting arrest", the unarmed Bin Laden was clearly targeted for death. Most people would agree that America is a safer place without him. Therefore, the end justified the means of ridding the country of this ongoing threat.
The end justifies the means when the situation is objectively pure evil and all other efforts to rectify the situation have been explored. Although none of us want to play God and kill another human being, for the good of mankind, it sometimes is necessary to assassinate the few evil people that cannot be stopped in any other way.
Many would argue that they should be imprisoned instead of assassinated. But anyone that would be refereed to as assassinated, instead of murdered, has done a great deal in their life, and therefore are also assumed to be in a position of power and authority. If they are imprisoned, they are able to represent their interests, and more than likely would be able to continue to operate their organization. However, the statement also assumes that the end was a real improvement from the conditions before the assassination.
If the end is worth the cost, then it is fine to assasinate undesirables. However, the problems arise when judging if it is worth it, and if the undesirable might be of potential value later. For example, assasinating undesirables that are murderers is justified in that it saves future lives, as for assasinating Hitler would have been something I beleive everyone can agree would have been justified.
It is mine to avenge says the LORD, it is mine to repay. One can never justify injustice. We should always look to the Lord for justice as he is in control of this world and he sees all the injustice. It never goes unnoticed by him. Therefore we should wait patiently for the Lord.
Normally, such saying goes hand in hand with an attempt to do something which might not be agreed upon by either society or law. If any individual is to decide what's wrong and what's right by himself/herself, an inevitable chaos is going to take place. An common example has always been provided in such matter; assassinating a wrong doer in the name of justice, but is everyone able to determine whether the concerned person deserves to be killed or not?
Who really gets to decide what is right and wrong in society? Should anyone really be able to have that kind of power? When an assassin kills their mark, that is exactly what they're doing: using dominating power. They are using brute force to get their way. There is always a better way to solve problems and conflicts.
Any sweeping statement, such as this, is worse than useless in governing human actions, when it concerns the lives of others. It promotes mob mentality and vigilante action. In all circumstances, where a person's life is in the balance, each separate case must be carefully weighed. What makes an individual "undesirable", and to whom are they dispensable? What consequences will the killing of the person in question have upon others? Who will be impacted positively, and who negatively? No blanket statement, like "the end justifies the means", should ever be employed by the rational thinker. There is a fine line between assassination and murder, and "means" employed can be catastrophic in some cases, more than anything the "undesirable" could do. Think carefully before you kill. The ripples from every blow struck can and will cross oceans.
In the 1960s, the CIA plotted to assassinate Fidel Castro, because the Kennedy administration felt that having a Communist dictatorship 90 miles from the United States was a threat to the country and, therefore, he was an "undesirable". Later, in the same decade, white supremacist James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., because his activism against racial segregation made him an "undesirable" in Mr. Ray's eyes. The definition of "undesirable" is too broad, relative, and arbitrary to be used to justify assassination as a means to an end. Furthermore, depending on the desired end, anyone could theoretically be targeted as an "undesirable".
We might think killing someone removes the problem. If we look at the history of assassinations that affected the world, we will see that the end does not justify the means. Assassination in past history has resulted in more problems than before the assassination. A few wars resulted in the assassination of key political figures. World War 1 is a prime example. So, if the end justifies the means, we better be sure the end is going to be the desired result.
I believe the "ends justify the means" in a positive sense for the person who has been hard on there luck their whole life and then viola they are turned around by the good fortune of others, because they have always shown good nature despite there circumstances. Proof that its doesn't always need a negative outcome.
"The end justifies the means" does not justify the means. Laws are put into place for a reason. A government stepping all over citizen's rights in order to accomplish something else without consent does not justify anything. A better question to ask would be "does the means justify the end?" In many cases, I think not.
By claiming the right to assassinate undesirables, this gives others the right to decide who is undesirable AND the right to kill them. Do you wish to give away your own right to life the moment others decides that you use up too many public resources? Why not kill those who are politically disagreeing with you since it prevents perfect social harmony? Why not kill those who are not physically perfect, even if they can live and work due to improvements in medicine, because their life is deemed less than a perfect model? Why not kill those ethnic groups that won't go away, since they seem to have other beliefs or religions or national loyalties, and they prevent the nation for having the desired appearance of unity? Why not kill those who don't meet intellectual standards, since they aren't in the image of the perfect race? Why not kill the old who worked for years, since they drain on the society now that they cannot contribute? Why not kill the children of those you don't like, since their children are undesirable compared to your perfect children, and killing THOSE children gives your children a better chance of getting into the best schools or or resources to support a better lifestyle? Where, then, do the ends justify the murders?
The Nazi's believed in assassinating undesirables, only they called it exterminating in the name of Eugenics. It lead to the death of millions of Jews. Who decides who is undesirable? Does the definition change over time? Do the undesirables get a vote?