Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
No, it doesn't.
If I cured cancer, but killed 100 people to do it, would that be acceptable?
I hate it when people bring up these type of questions.
Considering that all ends are simply the result of means, saying that the ends justify the means is a way of trying to defend an otherwise indefensible position by claiming a supposedly noble intention. It's basically a load of crap. First of all there never WOULD be a situation where you knew that you could cure cancer by killing 100 people. It's completely abstract and irrelevant to any real discussion of morality. Then ends do not justify the means, case closed.
When the means would consist of trespassing against the constitution or other fundamental laws, then no, the means would not- and never would- justify the ends.
How is it completely abstract? What if someone in order to cure cancer needed to test it out on human subjects and killed hundreds of them?
But who decides what are fundamental laws Liberty?
Who the heck are you to decide that buddy?
You actually could kill 100s in order to find a cure. It's called a phase III trial.
Yea, pal.
You could not know exactly how many would die before you discovered a cure, or that your current line of research would result in a cure. The question should be, "Would you kill 100 people to 'attempt' to cure cancer?" Because you can not know the results of your actions, you cannot attempt to justify the means with the ends, because the ends are not certain. Again, case closed.
I am talking in general terms. All people have a basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- I'm sure we can all agree to that. When efforts to keep us safe, say, were to trespass against the Constitutional and innate rights to liberty, then they would be wrong.
The end NEVER justifies the means.
My not-so-humble opinion.
sounds like utiltarianism
The end never justifies the means?
An idealist's hymn…
The end ALWAYS justifies the means!
Because an action can ONLY be judged by its end result.