Ends justifying the means

[athos]

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

At the battle of the bulge in WW2, the americans had to machine gun to death the german prisoners so they could move on and continue fighting to overthrow the nazis and win the war. This was clearly a violation of the geneva convention, but it had to be done, there weren't soldiers that could be spared to guard the prisoners.

Anytime there is war, there is going to be "incidents" that are terrible and awful, the fact that most civilians don't know or want to know about them is fine. If the war is fought to prevent tyranny like WW2, then I think you can say those things are probably ok in the grand scheme of things. I just feel bad for the line soldiers that have to do the "evil" and then live with what they did for the rest of their lives.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Well, Carthage hasn't bothered anyone recently.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

She therefore acted improperly and should have been punished accordingly.

Well, the thing is, she was. She was convicted of manslaughter, not 1st degree murder, and the suspended sentence is within the jurisdiction's guidelines. Its rare, but not unheard of. There's all kinds of room for sentencing in manslaughter cases.

Consider Donté Stallworth, the Cleveland Browns player who got a sentence of 30 days in jail & 2 years house arrest, 8 years probation and a lifetime ban on driving (reviewable and alterable in 5 years) & 1000 hours community service for intoxication manslaughter. He got it not just throu status & wealth- it was his first offense of any kind, he was genuinely, immediately and publicly remorseful, and had a good overall reputation in the community. Even the decedent's family was satisfied with the sentence.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, Carthage hasn't bothered anyone recently.

But what would things have been like had they won?

Besides, what have the Romans done for us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

 

[tomBitonti]

Not sure if these examples really fit "the ends justify the means".

Soldiers, for example, have chosen to face harm, and will generally know that they might be asked to make a sacrifice to server a greater cause, perhaps without understanding what is happening.

Not agreeing one way or another, but there seems to be enough uncertainty in regards to the lady who killed her husband to make that a difficult example.

The example of use of WWII test results of the Nazi's is an after the fact decision. To fit the definition (as it seems to me), we would have to ask if we should perform similar experiments today, and that the value to society would be worth the harm to innocents.

To say, there seems to be a particular character or sense built into the statement "the ends justify the means". I find interesting the kind of examples which are chosen. What about taking chemotherapy for cancer? Or a lifelong regimen of somewhat unpleasant drugs as a treatment for HIV? Or losing a limb to stave off cancer?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Hand of Evil]

To me the answer is in the statement; do you have to justify the means? If you do, I think there maybe something wrong going on.

A real world example that I know of, should the results of Nazi human experimentation be used in medicine today. This disgusts me, I can't see any justification to allow it.

 

[Kramodlog]

Saving lives so that at least those people didn't die in vain?

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Imho, there are none.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Imho, there are none.

What would you do in the lifeboat situation (post #20)?

 

[Hand of Evil]

Saving lives so that at least those people didn't die in vain?

That is then saying it is right for the next guy to do it, that the cure can come at the price of a person's freedom's and rights and that some people are less valuable because of their race, religion or sexual preference.