Ends justifying the means

[Kramodlog]

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.

It doesn't seem like it was imminent.

 

[Janx]

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.

I suspect that is the question that the OT attempts to broach. Can somebody find an example that appears to have a terrible means that is justified by the end?

And then review if that example is true or not. I believe I have disproved Danny's wife killing evil husband as there was likely a less terrible means to get the same result (thus proving your position correct).

Yes, cause it is funnerer that way.

The usage gives me a political vibe as it calls out deliberate intent to not say the traditional word. I don't know the actual intent for its usage, or if it was a Quebec way of writing the word.

 

[Kramodlog]

It is a direct intent to not use the traditional word, for that strange and mysterious tradition we have in Québec: terrible humor. Ask any OTTer. They'll make terrible jokes. Probably because I am a terrible person.

 

[Umbran]

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.

I think it is taken for granted, because for each person there are some cases where the ends do justify the means. If we can find a single case in which we agree that it happened, then we can get out of arguing whether it happens at all, and instead can argue over where the lines between justified and not lay.

I'll use myself as an example, in which I feel pretty secure. Yesterday was, for me, "Donate a Day of Work" day. I donated the wages of one full day of work to charity. I chose the World Wildlife Fund. I donated online - that used a small amount of electricity, which means a small amount of pollution. I am pretty sure that my donation does more to help preserve the natural world than the pollution I incurred damages the world. Thus, my ends I reached justified the means I used to reach them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

One would hope.

Then again, There is also the problem that James- the husband- was a man of wealth in a small community. He had apparently been involved in 16 reported violent crime allegations- as both victim and perpetrator- none apparently resulting in jail time for anyone. If the local constabularies aren't that interested in solving violent crimes among the local elites, what would police call #17 get?

In addition, we're talking about decisions made by someone who was minutes away from eating the gun she fed to someone else a few minutes later. Probably a poster child for "battered women's syndrome."

 

[Kramodlog]

I think it is taken for granted, because for each person there are some cases where the ends do justify the means. If we can find a single case in which we agree that it happened, then we can get out of arguing whether it happens at all, and instead can argue over where the lines between justified and not lay.

What if someone doesn't believe the end justify the means in any case? I take this definition from an online dictionary: You can use bad or immoral methods as long as you accomplish something good by using them.

Soem Tibetains set themselves on fire to protest the invasion of their country by China, to avoid hurting other people. It seems that to them the end doesn't justifythe means, so violence it turned inwards instead of that the one doing the slight.

I'll use myself as an example, in which I feel pretty secure. Yesterday was, for me, "Donate a Day of Work" day. I donated the wages of one full day of work to charity. I chose the World Wildlife Fund. I donated online - that used a small amount of electricity, which means a small amount of pollution. I am pretty sure that my donation does more to help preserve the natural world than the pollution I incurred damages the world. Thus, my ends I reached justified the means I used to reach them.

This is not what BG intended when he wrote the OP.

And yes, it makes you a terrible person. /shakes head

 

[Zombie_Babies]

She still decided to kill someone for crimes that don't earn the perpetrator capital punishment and she did so in order to prevent crimes from happening* - not to address any that had. She should have gone to prison.
__________

*And these crimes were not imminent. She believed her daughter would be in imminent danger only if she were to take her own life.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It seems that to them the end doesn't justifythe means, so violence it turned inwards instead of that the one doing the slight.

OTOH, some would argue that suicide is itself an immoral act. So their self-immolation would fith the presumed criteria of using bad/immoral act to achieve a good end.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

She still decided to kill someone for crimes that don't earn the perpetrator capital punishment and she did so in order to prevent crimes from happening* - not to address any that had. She should have gone to prison.
__________

*And these crimes were not imminent. She believed her daughter would be in imminent danger only if she were to take her own life.

The imminence of her daughter's danger was arguably pretty high, since she was getting ready to kill herself. And defense of another is one of the categories of actions that lets someone skate on a charge of using deadly force. In such a case, the defense of another need not be protecting someone from death, but merely from grave bodily harm...child rape would probably qualify.

The bombing is the one with the unsure timeline.

Still, as to your main point, she was convicted and given a suspended sentence. That means that, in the eyes of the court, they did not believe she was a threat to others- see battered wives syndrome theories- but that if she did prove to be a threat by failing to comply during the term set, she would have faced immediate imprisonment.

 

[Janx]

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.

I think for the US, transitioning out of slavery was always going to be difficult. the US was one of the last powers to still have it. France appears to have got off easy because they only did it offshore, they quit early, and were welcoming to blacks by then.

I'm not sure if the South would have given slavery up if the civil war didn't happen. I would suspect abolitionists would have kept up their movements. So if it wasn't made a state vs. state issue, there still would have been individuals making this a big cause on their own.

I can't imagine that going peacefully, and I can't imagine things being better for the slaves under an extended duration in the alternate history, as compared to the civil war.