Ends justifying the means

[Kramodlog]

What are some historical real world examples of a objectively good end justifying a terrible means? For "historical," we should probably look back to pre-WWII history.

Bullgrit

Seems you're saying that the end does justify the means. Maybe it doesn't. Two wrongs do not make a right goes the saying.

Take slavery and the civil war in the US. Basically, it forced the end of slavery down the throat of the Souf. This created resentement toward the federal guberment that still exist today, lead to segregation for a long time and racism is still a problem. Sure, slaves were freed, but was it better for them and their descendants? Would avoiding the horror of war and just let the Souf evolve toward ending slavery have been better on the long term for blacks and the US has a nation even if a lot of people would have been kept as slaves for a while longer?

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Just thought of one: 19th century English body snatching.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So would you say it is a yes or a no?

With the navy stuff? Yes.

If your ship is suffering a major breach, you may have to shut a bulkhead door in your best buddy's face- ensuring he drowns- in order to save the ship. Its terrible, but it may be required of you...and its an assessment that may have to be done very quickly.

 

[Kramodlog]

She did- it's what diverted her from suicide: she felt that if she killed herself, nobody would be protecting her daughter from her own daddy when he finally decided to emulate IRL what he was viewing online.

Doesn't that mean she didn't need to kill him and could just have called the police?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, slaves were freed, but was it better for them and their descendants? Would avoiding the horror of war and just let the Souf evolve toward ending slavery have been better on the long term for blacks and the US has a nation even if a lot of people would have been kept as slaves for a while longer?

Yes, their descendants were better off, some even immediately post war. Heck, historians can confirm that a few hundred slaves* improved their lot in life during the war fighting for the Confederates.

As for long term...had the Confederates won or the war never happened, the world would be a much different- worse, IMHO- place.









* numbers greater than that have been claimed, but cannot be supported by the historical record.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Doesn't that mean she didn't need to kill him and could just have called the police?

Like I said, I don't know if the timing was such that the police would have arrived in time to prevent him leaving with his bomb.

 

[Umbran]

Like I said, I don't know if the timing was such that the police would have arrived in time to prevent him leaving with his bomb.

If she dials 911 about a bomb, the cops would (depending on the location) be there in minutes, right?

Assuming basic competence of jury, lawyers, and judge....

If there's a credible argument that he was going to use the bomb imminently, I wouldn't expect a jury to convict her for murder. While vigilante justice is frowned upon, don't most states recognize the need for citizens to use force to stop crimes? Similarly, if there's credible argument that calling the cops would put herself or her child in danger - say, she *just discovered the bomb*, and had a confrontation with him - she probably has a self-defense defense. As a long-term sufferer of abuse, she might have made it with a temporary insanity defense as well...

If there *wasn't* credible argument that he was going out imminently - if the police response time would have been good enough, if she could go next door to make that call - then a murder charge seems like the way it would go.

 

[Janx]

Seems you're saying that the end does justify the means. Maybe it doesn't. Two wrongs do not make a right goes the saying.

That's the very point of BG's thread I believe. To identify if there was a historical situation where a "terrible" means was implemented the the End justified.

Take slavery and the civil war in the US. Basically, it forced the end of slavery down the throat of the Souf. This created resentement toward the federal guberment that still exist today, lead to segregation for a long time and racism is still a problem. Sure, slaves were freed, but was it better for them and their descendants? Would avoiding the horror of war and just let the Souf evolve toward ending slavery have been better on the long term for blacks and the US has a nation even if a lot of people would have been kept as slaves for a while longer?

Just a question, as I'm not sure if it's a regional spelling thing or not.

When you write "the Souf" did you mean "the South"?
And is there a reason you write "guberment" instead of "government"

 

[Janx]

You get some über-pragmatic decision making trees in the military. Most navies- especially submariners in said navies- train a lot about slamming bulkhead doors closed in the event of a major leak, even of it means sealing up someone to die. Because if you don't, the entire ship may go down.

In a military hierarchy, I think there's always the situation of making choices that will hurt somebody.

Much like playing chess and sacrificing a pawn. In the real military, sacrificing a pawn means some of your soldiers die in order to accomplish the objective.

I reckon that's a means that's terrible for somebody on your side, justified by the end.

 

[Kramodlog]

That's the very point of BG's thread I believe. To identify if there was a historical situation where a "terrible" means was implemented the the End justified.

I'm questioning whether the there are any case where the end justify the means. It seems to be taken for granted that it can be the case.

Just a question, as I'm not sure if it's a regional spelling thing or not.

When you write "the Souf" did you mean "the South"?
And is there a reason you write "guberment" instead of "government"

Yes, cause it is funnerer that way.