Do the ends justify the means ? Sometimes ... do the ends justify the means sometimes ?
Torturing a suspect to save a million people and a thousand puppies ?
Are the means justified then ? At a time when the loss is either great or personal ? Is it OK then ?
What do you imagine Jesus to say --- what would his stance be?
Would Jesus say it is OK .... sometimes our enemies are so bad we have to commit atrocities to win .....?
Would he really say that ?
In the end haven't we allowed our so called enemy to dictate our choices and our behavior by providing just the circumstance we needed to justify it all ?
What enemy could we possibly be fighting that is so bad that we must turn into just that in order to win ?
If we allow ourselves to become closer to or worse than the evil acts of our enemies how could we call that a win ? Hasn't the enemy just turned us into them ---- that sounds like a horrible defeat doesn't it ?
I didn't put words into Jesus mouth --- I asked a question
What would Jesus say ? Would he say this?
It is you that imagined what Jesus answer would be --- and from the sound of it you didn't like the answer you imagined Jesus would have
What would Jesus say ? Would he say this?
It is a question ...... what do you think he would say?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The truth is, hate has an undercurrent of admiration.
Most people do not know this.
We admire their negative qualities because they are a threat.
When you feel someone is a danger to you-do you just sit back and do nothing? No, even if you hate them-you prepare against them, hence-you admire their ability to be a threat to your "greatness".
And of course, this also gives us the proclivity to turn into what we admire. As children, we wanted to grow up to be those we admired...Micheal Jordan, Neil Armstrong, the President, ect.
Hence, "Role Models". A model (of a person) role (Job, fame, ect.) we wish to become out of respect. That is why those unworthy of respect yet get it from those who don't know any better are called "Bad Role Models", i.e. Paris Hilton and Charles Manson.
But Terrorists? A role model? Ridiculous, you might say.
But on the contrary-remember that hate has an undercurrent of admiration.
We think that to beat them, we must become as dangerous as they are-more and more.
Didn't we deride Saddam Hussein for torturing his enemies? We used this as an excuse.
We even used the 5 stages of Denial-Acceptance.
Denial-We do NOT Torture!
Anger-We have to, for the good of our county you commie libs!
Bargaining-Hey, they did it to us!
Remorse-It may have been wrong...Those responsible may be charged...
Acceptance-The end justified the means.
So any act-so long as they do it too-is deemed valid because we see ourselves as completely in the right.Source(s): Independent Moderate
- Lone WolfLv 71 decade ago
No, the 'ends' do not justify the 'means'.
Exceptions to this are not a matter of Philosophy. In other words, the exception would only be valid after the 'ends' have been achieved, and can only be applied at the beginning of the 'means', hence not philosophically determinable. If you try to look back at historical events, to prove the answer to this question, then you are barking up a wrong tree. You cannot determine intent of the 'means' after the 'ends' have come (from a historical perspective-the winners always write history that justifies their actions).
Intentionally following intuitively honorable 'means', as a matter of integrity, is the only reliable way to obtain honorable 'ends' with a reasonable chance of repeatable success.
Jesus would say 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.
The Golden Rule is all we need - for any rule of conduct, including law and I'm not religious. It is, perhaps, the ultimate expression of honorable 'means' being the only responsible way to follow in order to achieve honorable 'ends'.
- justgoodfolkLv 71 decade ago
Depends on one issue to the next. In general often the end justify the means yes.
It is virtually impossible to go through a day without using a negative mean to achieve a positive end.
In reality, the end frequently justifies the means.
Normally we would be opposed to cutting up someone with a knife. Yet we condone the goals of a surgeon who does exactly that.
Normally we would be opposed to killing a person. Yet we condone the goals of a self-defender who does exactly that.
Normally we would be opposed to poisoning someone with a deadly virus. Yet we condone the goals of a vaccination nurse who does exactly that.
In the examples you give though the end is really as morally corrupt as the means to get there so the answer is clearly no. When we're supposedly fighting these freedom hating terrorists who want to turn us into the savages they are because they hate freedom, the rule of law and so on it doesn't take a genius to understand when we torture and give up our liberties in the name of security we're helping them establish their goals.
Their goal is to end freedom, liberty and all that good stuff. How can giving it up ourselves "to fight the war on terror" ever be a legitimate response, let alone an end that justifies the means?
As Leon Trotsky put it very well "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end. "
- ol white bikerLv 51 decade ago
Jesus would say;
"Let he who is among you that is Without Sin, cast the Fist stone."
Jesus would Feed them, Heal their wounds and provide them with shelter.
Now as to the Question Does the end result justify the means.
the intent is Noble and Honorable, ie one must stay and continue to lay down repressive fire,possibly getting killed so the others can escape, then Yes.
Torture is just Stupid, we Do have Truth Syrums!
And if one is going to torture, then do it right and use that person Religion against them. That worked for General Pershing.Source(s): Trikerphilosophy
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Dina WLv 61 decade ago
The only thing that certain cultures understand is brute force... Being diplomatic, and making treaties means nothing to them.
Look at the 8 years the world has been begging Iran not to create a nuclear bomb.... and the President of Iran said on thursday he wants to wipe the west off the map (again)
So in those instances, yes, the ends justify the means... Or there might be an Earth left to debate such issues.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Of course it does sometimes.
Of course it doesn't sometimes.
It depends entirely on the circumstances and any claims by known or suspected liers/politicians that whatever they do is justified need to be examined all the more closely.
Presumably Jesus would say 'kill them all if it pleases god' so why choose him as your example, I'd go w. Ralph Nadar or someone w/scruples and no axe to grind..
- satcomgruntLv 71 decade ago
The best example I can give of this is WW2. The US and Britain Bombed German cities in to rubble and killed millions of civilians. Men woman and children. Yet they did it to stop Hitler. Nobody in their right mind would say what we did at Dresden was a noble act but it was an that needed to be done. In that case those B-17 raids helped stop Hitler so yes the means justified the ends.
- Change Sucks #2Lv 61 decade ago
So is self defense never justified? What about making it a smaller scale scenario? If someone breaks into your home and has your child and they make it clear they intend to murder him, is it not justified, in the defense of the innocent, to murder the attacker before they can inflict harm?
The irony in what you are asking here is what is done to terrorists does not end their lives and is not even intended to. It is simply meant to create enough fear to extract LIFE SAVING information. If that is not acceptable to you then I can only assume you'll be the first to accept the death of loved ones at the hands of those terrorists, right? Should someone you are close to be in the middle of a successful terrorist attack, you'll at least take heart in knowing that those who pre meditated such carnage weren't frightened enough to give interrogators the information needed to prevent the attack.
Is it that you don't understand you can NOT have it both ways. Either was frighten terrorists enough to extract life saving info OR people get slaughtered mercilessly-WHICH do you prefer? And frankly, as simplistic as that seems, it's reality, so take your pick.
- ThunderstruckLv 61 decade ago
Why are you such a Dem-wit? Using Jesus to try and make a point against people that don't agree with you? What's the matter with you? Would you use some harsh interrogation techniques against 1 person to save your Country, friends or family? Or would you stick to the crap you're shoveling and let everyone I mentioned die, so you can feel good about yourself in the morning? You and people like you cannot be trusted to keep us safe. You have your own little agenda and are preaching the ole "Greater than though" sermon to further that agenda. This country wouldn't have survived as long as it has with that type of attitude.
- 1 decade ago
Oh Lord be with them..
Waterboarding? Can you hold your breath for 40 seconds? Can't remember off the top of my head what the session limit was on it.
does waterboarding equate to Hiroshima? No
Would I use waterboarding personally to save the life of my own child?
You betcha buckwheat!!
EDIT.... And why is a lefty bringing Jesus into this? You don't believe in that -Jesus and those things that are just by Faith.
You are tripping yourself over your own lies.