I think lots of people believe that the ends can justify the means.
But to me, that expression means the same thing as, “Whatever causes a good outcome must not be bad.” And I not only disagree with it, I don’t even think it makes sense.
I heard a story about a guy who was stabbed in a mugging and during surgery for the stabbing, found out that he had cancer, which saved his life.
But nobody is going to go to the judge during the mugger’s trial, and say that his decision to stab the guy was “justified,” and so he should be released to stab again with his completely justified stabbing history.
No, the things that are justifiable are those which are good and informed actions. You can’t justify bad or ignorant actions simply because of luck.
But it doesn’t mean “whatever causes a good outcome must not be bad”.
It means that sometimes for the greater good, you have to pay a price.
Think of the trolley problem, would you kill 1 person to save 5? Many people would say yes. They’re not saying murder is good, but the ends justify the means
I see what you’re saying, that there are two cases. One where the ends is the goal of the person who used the means, and one where the ends is not the goal of the person who used the means. I only mentioned the latter in my comment.
But from my perspective, if the stabber purely intended to uncover cancer, and for some reason they actually had the expertise and knowledge to know that that specific person had cancer, and this was somehow the only way to prove it, then the action itself is inherently altruistic. From my perspective, it wouldn’t be less altruistic even if the person turned out not to have cancer. So, I don’t think it would count as the ends justifying the means.
If the same stabber, with the same expertise and knowledge, actually had multiple ways of achieving the ends, like they could have talked about it rather than stabbing, but they chose the stabbing route, then I think you can’t say that the stabbing was justified, regardless of whether the cancer was discovered.
There may be other cases worth digging into. I’m sure there are lots of examples I didn’t think of, but I’d be surprised if they were convincing to me. The reason is that, my experience has taught me that good ends are most predictably the results of just and informed actions.
I think lots of people believe that the ends can justify the means.
But to me, that expression means the same thing as, “Whatever causes a good outcome must not be bad.” And I not only disagree with it, I don’t even think it makes sense.
I heard a story about a guy who was stabbed in a mugging and during surgery for the stabbing, found out that he had cancer, which saved his life.
But nobody is going to go to the judge during the mugger’s trial, and say that his decision to stab the guy was “justified,” and so he should be released to stab again with his completely justified stabbing history.
No, the things that are justifiable are those which are good and informed actions. You can’t justify bad or ignorant actions simply because of luck.
But it doesn’t mean “whatever causes a good outcome must not be bad”.
It means that sometimes for the greater good, you have to pay a price.
Think of the trolley problem, would you kill 1 person to save 5? Many people would say yes. They’re not saying murder is good, but the ends justify the means
Would the ends justify taking a healthy person off the street and harvesting their organs to save five people?
I agree with you, but I think your example is lacking as the stabber purely intended to mug and not uncover cancer.
I see what you’re saying, that there are two cases. One where the ends is the goal of the person who used the means, and one where the ends is not the goal of the person who used the means. I only mentioned the latter in my comment.
But from my perspective, if the stabber purely intended to uncover cancer, and for some reason they actually had the expertise and knowledge to know that that specific person had cancer, and this was somehow the only way to prove it, then the action itself is inherently altruistic. From my perspective, it wouldn’t be less altruistic even if the person turned out not to have cancer. So, I don’t think it would count as the ends justifying the means.
If the same stabber, with the same expertise and knowledge, actually had multiple ways of achieving the ends, like they could have talked about it rather than stabbing, but they chose the stabbing route, then I think you can’t say that the stabbing was justified, regardless of whether the cancer was discovered.
There may be other cases worth digging into. I’m sure there are lots of examples I didn’t think of, but I’d be surprised if they were convincing to me. The reason is that, my experience has taught me that good ends are most predictably the results of just and informed actions.
well put