I have heard the phrase, "ends justifying the means" in contexts in which the means are questionable. Is there a clear line where the ends do justify the means in general? — TiredThinker

In the mind of the one decides to take a destructive action. Not because his back is against a wall, or his child is in immediate danger, and he's running out of options, but in cold daylight. A general, calculating how many dead soldiers will fill up the moat so that the rest of the army can cross. A municipal official defunding school lunches, in order to beef up the police force. A contractor, deciding to take shortcuts on waterproofing, to get his building finished before the refugees arrive. And heads of state, daily weighing the human cost/benefit ratio of economic/diplomatic/military responses.

But that is only if you succeed in getting it in the first place. — TiredThinker

The functional element is always IF.

If the decision is based on sound enough intel, risk is minimized to the fullest possible extent, nothing unforeseen goes wrong and all the other participants behave as predicted, the outcome is good, and the decision appears justified.
Objectively, however, nothing is justified before the fact - only after. There are always unknown factors and quantities; unintended consequences and byproducts, including collateral damage that wasn't figured in. There are no ends. An episode is finished; a hurdle passed, a goal reached, a battle won, but the process continues. Every interim "end" is the result of the means used to achieve it: The means determine the ends.

"If the ends do not justify the means, what in god's name does?" V. Lenin

In order of preference

1. Good means, good ends
2. Bad means, good ends
3. Good means, bad ends
4. Bad means, bad ends

:smile:

I don't accept "ends justify means" arguments in ethics. Means and ends must be adjusted to one another so that the latter is not undermined or invalidated by the former while the former is calibrated to enact the latter. A version of reflective equilibrium. — 180 Proof

1. Good means, good ends
2. Bad means, good ends
3. Good means, bad ends
4. Bad means, bad ends — Agent Smith

5. Beanz Meanz Heinz

5. Beanz Meanz Heinz — Tom Storm

Private language? :chin:

Perhaps... It was an old English advertising slogan for Hienz baked beans... It seemed apropos.

Perhaps... It was an old English advertising slogan for Hienz baked beans... It seemed apropos. — Tom Storm

Quite alright, ol' chap! Is anything amiss with my ordered list though?

1. Good means, good ends
2. Bad means, good ends
3. Good means, bad ends
4. Bad means, bad ends — Agent Smith

But aren't the bad means bad ends in themselves? If I can save 100 lives by killing 1, that is good ends (saving 100 lives) with bad means (killing someone). But also the killing of that someone is a bad end in itself.

I don't accept "ends justify means" arguments in ethics. Means and ends must be adjusted to one another so that the latter is not undermined or invalidated by the former while the former is calibrated to enact the latter. A version of reflective equilibrium. — 180 Proof

The list speaks for itself.

It doesn't answer my question - are the means also ends in themselves? It seems to me means are often (perhaps even always, but I'm not sure) ends themselves.

In which case the question becomes "Am i justified to cause some ends (a,b,c) in order to get other ends (x,y,z)."

It doesn't answer my question - are the means also ends in themselves? It seems to me means are often (perhaps even always, but I'm not sure) ends themselves. — PhilosophyRunner

Well, you might wanna kill a certain Mr. X and it so happens that doing so saves a 100 people.

Yes, but that was not my question.

Rather I was arguing that killing Mr X is an end in itself. And the saving 100 people are also ends. They are all ends - even the means are ends. So you are just weighing up different ends based on some moral theory.

Yes, but that was not my question.

Rather I was arguing that killing Mr X is an end in itself. And the saving 100 people are also ends. they are all ends - even the means are ends. — PhilosophyRunner

Yup, it depend then on intent.

Could you elaborate on that?

Could you elaborate on that? — PhilosophyRunner

The notion of ends and means depends on intent as mediated by causality. Your end: save a 100 people. Your means: kill 1 person. The goal (save 100) is achieved through a subgoal (kill 1).

@PhilosophyRunner

Quid accidit?

Right. Using this in your previous ordered list, and the second and third item in particular:

2. Bad subgoals, good goals
3. Good subgoals, bad goals

According to your list, 2. is better than 3. Now let's flesh that out with a hypothetical example:

2. killing 500 (bad subgoal) to save 100 (good goal)
3. saving 500 (good subgoal) to kill 100 (bad goal)

Do you agree with the above order - that 2 is better that 3? Your list suggests the goal always carries more moral weight than the subgoal - why?

That formulation doesn't make sense to me.

Let me expand and clarify.

There is a guy called Mark. Mark really really wants to save 100 people over there. That is his goal. in order to do that he has to kill 500 people, but oh well, he really wants to save those 100 people.

Mark is a 2. in the list kind of guy - his goal was good, his sub goal was bad.

There is also a guy named John. John really wants to kill 100 people over there. But in order to carry out that plan he must first save 500 lives.

John is a 3. in the list kind of guy - his goal was bad, but his subgoal was good.

Your list places Mark as morally better than John. Why? Your list places the goal as carrying more moral weight than the subgoal - why?

What "list"?

I could easily respond to that by saying ...

2. Kill 100 (bad subgoal) to save 500 (good goal)
3. Saving 100 (good subgoal) to kill 500 (bad goal)

... and asking which is better?

What "list"? — 180 Proof

In order of preference

1. Good means, good ends
2. Bad means, good ends
3. Good means, bad ends
4. Bad means, bad ends — Agent Smith

That is a different example though.

In Mark and John's example, who is better?

At best your new example would show that the list is not fixed and is context specific.

In Mark and John's example, who is better? — PhilosophyRunner

The question doesn't make sense.

1. Good means, good ends
2. Bad means, good ends
3. Good means, bad ends
4. Bad means, bad ends

Ok, let me refresh on Mark and John.

Mark killed 500 to save 100. John saved 500 to kill 100.

Since you just repeated your list, i assume that you are deferring to your list.

Mark is 2.
John is 3.

So I guess you would consider Mark as morally preferable to John. Do you agree?

The ends justify the means, that's what we're discussing here mon ami.

Yes, and that is what I too am discussing. Perhaps I should simplify further. Here is a new example:

I want to save 1 person - my daughter. That is my end.

To save her I need to kill 100 innocent people. That is my means.

This is number 2. in your list, yes or no? Good ends (save my daughter), bad means (kill 100). This is number 2.

I'll continue in the next post, but I thought I'll take it step by step to avoid confusion.

Please save your daughter.

Ok, so killing 100 innocent people justifies saving my daughter. (this is hypothetical - I don't have a daughter only a son. Otherwise I wouldn't feel comfortable using the example! :) )