RE: Is there any moral justification for ''the ends justify the means''?
Congrats for the comprehensive, well-written post!
My opinion in this matter is that, on making this type of decisions, we should always strive to do what is best in the framework of humanity (and life), given our current knowledge. If we are to take an action that could potentially hurt other people, we should always weight the impact of it in the bigger picture, giving some room to the possibility that we could be wrong.
For instance the trolley problem to me is a no brainer, if I had no information of the people in the railway tracks: I would pull the lever because saving 5 people, at the cost of 1, means that the world would have 4 more people that can potentially do good. In the other hand if the person in the railway tracks, that would die if I pulled the lever, was Bill Gates, I wouldn't pull it. Bill Gates can reach millions of people, he has much more positive impact in the world than the other 5 persons combined. However if I was convicted that a certain a type of people should be eradicated for the greater good, and I had the power to do it, I would abstain from it because the potential negative impact of doing so would far outweigh the eventual benefits of it.
Any way, very nice post, keep it up!
Wow! What a well thought comment you have above. The yardstick for judging the scenario of Bill Gate as explained above is personal. As a person, i do not like the 'weighing' argument because it is utilitarianism (you can read about it) argument which has lot of problems.
However, i truly get your point and feel we should do good at all times irrespective of what we get in return.
meep
Thank you for your reply. I agree that the Bill Gates argument is maybe a bit extreme and can raise other arguments that are off topic. The point is indeed that, as you say,"we should do good at all times irrespective of what we get in return". In this regards, it goes without saying, that "good" should be framed in a perspective of the collective, not the self.
Yeah ! My modification to your position: 'good' should be framed in a perspective of the collective which includes the 'self'. You cannot separate and individual from his/her actions. So collectivism in the aspect include the person in question.
Thanks 👍
We are completely on the same page in that regards! I put it like that only to emphasize that the "good" should not be framed in a selfish way.
Thank you for your valuable input.
@richard, seriously i do not totally agree with you on Bill gate scenario.. What of if the person that is sacrifised is destined to save or make impact on one billion people than the one million people Bill Gate is making now... Don't you think a grivous mistake have been done... But in the other sence i still believe with you that the devil i know now is much better than the angel i don't know..... Thanks
I totally understand your reasoning and I confess it crossed my mind as I was writing the original comment. However, I approached the issue in a probabilistic manner. It's much more likely that Bill Gates has a bigger impact on the world than 5 "random" people. Even if those people would eventually have a bigger impact I still wouldn't consider my decision a mistake because it was statistically correct to let Bill Gates live, with the knowledge I had at the moment. Nevertheless, as I've stated above, this argument is indeed a bit extreme and raises questions that go beyond the topic at hand.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.