Do Ends Justify Means?

return_to_hades thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 17 years ago
#1
Simple Questions - Do Ends Justify Means?

Is it right to do something illegal for the greater good of something ethical?
e.g. Robin Hood stealing from rich to give to poor, Killing a rapist because there was no evidence to build case

Is it right to lie/deceive for the greater interest of helping someone?
e.g. Friends sticking up for each other, lying to shield people from tragedy/danger etc.


Created

Last reply

Replies

12

Views

1.7k

Users

12

Frequent Posters

Aanandaa thumbnail
20th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#2
There is no right or wrong answer to this...It all depends upon the situation...Lets say an innocent guy comes seeking for shelter at your place when the goons were chasing him, your duty is to save that guy even if you have to lie about his whereabouts....You can't say 'honesty is the best policy' and subject that guy to a possible murder...Here the end certainly justifies the means....

Raksha

pragalbha thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#3
return_to_hades : A very ethical question that I am sure several of us had to answer in our lives. 😊

I agree with Raksha that the end is what gives us the needed strength and answer to choose that particular means.
BUT..... I cannot blanketly agree that even for a good end, people can choose a wrong means. And that is because, we humans are prone to so many fallacies and because it does not take us long to get corrupted!!! Only a really genuine do-gooder who can maintain the status quo of using bad means for a good end should do it. But of course that leads to the next question.....where will we find such a genuinely ethical person???

The examples you have given are black and white. But what about those grey areas where you are adopting a wrong means to achieve a good end. But that good end is not in favor of someone else who is a very good person too and you are hurting him/her??
qwertyesque thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#4
yes,.. but only if we allow the same privilege to criminals and endorse survival of fittest as a constitutional right... 😆
200467 thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#5
it depends who gets most affected in this whole ethical dilemma ordeal. if it is someone related to me at the other end, i would not think twice about the means i may uase to get to an end that benefits them. if it's society in general, i don't think i wld be that willing to commit a crime or unethical deal then.

...and i am talking about extreme situations here. like, may be giving a false testimony on an accused whereabouts in case it happens to be someone dear to me and my testimony can get them off the hook.
corvette thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#6
In most cases yes. But in some cases no. That's the succinct answer to such an open question.

😡 M 😡

Ritika2025 thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#7
There can never be an absolute answer to this question, just like there can never be any absolute right or wrong..

It differs from situation to situation and person to person
* A P P L E * thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Explorer Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#8
Admittedly, one answer -- or dodge, if you will -- would be to claim the right of anyone or any nation to self-defense. In other words, if someone attacks you, then is it okay to fight back, right? Self defense does sound like a viable argument, but is it also okay once someone has attacked you, to counterattack them without the hinderance of any moral restraints? If someone hits you in the back of the head, is it okay to turn and blow their brains out -- and quite possibly take a few innocent bystanders out as well?
return_to_hades thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 17 years ago
#9
Interesting views everybody thanks. I personally am yet to come to terms with when ends justify means and when they do not, it can be so subjective and complicated.

One of the reasons for me starting this topic was a few episodes of SVU I had watched.

In the episode called 'Guilt' a teenage boy has been molested and is emotionally distraught. His mother does not want to him to testify and tries to protect him but the ADA Alex Cabot pushes the boy so she can lock away the child molestor. The boy later attempted suicide in his emotional trauma and ended up damaging his brain forever.

What was the greater good putting away the child molestor and protecting all potential victims or the life and health of this one boy?

The boys brain damage threatens to destroy the case. However, they find out that the molestor mailed tapes to his victims. This information came from another victim who himself turned a molestor and is now in prison. Due to lack of credibility of the source the judge denies a warrant and the mother of the boy refuses to allow a search. The ADA lies that she has a warrant to search the house illegally and obtains evidence.

In the end the evidence is allowed as the defendants privacy was no violated. The mother finding that the evidence put her sons molestor in prison, that she does not file charges against the ADA. However, the ADA gets suspended for breaking the law.

Is a person justified in breaking the law in obtaining evidence? Should she have been suspended? What sort of law would not prosecute a person molesting children when there is video proof just because the evidence was illegally obtained?

luna_lovegood thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#10
Mind me nt repling..m kinda new here and this is a fascinating section..so couldnt resist myself! 😉 😃

Well...about the question...I must NOT think it right to do anything wrong of any magnitude to serve good to majority. I mean see I do agree that if the right isnt being shown then a step must be taken to shed light on it...bt if you too do something bad then you cant be differentiated from the evil.

Like the already quoted example of Robin Hood, stealing gold from the rich and distributing it to the poor...now all rich men arent bad and possible none of them are bad. They worked hard and earned themselves living, saved and hence became rich...whereas the poor might just be not willing to work and never save.
In such case it is very wrong to give the earing of a deserving to a poor.

I believe that we all make our fortunes...and after a certain extent..it doesnt matter if you are rich or poor but it does matter if you are a cheat or honest.


Now, I would also like to add that lieing which causes no harm can be considered a better way to get truth out. Often we can get a person into false trap from which he / she isnt harmed but admit their sins.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".