The_Universe
First Post
Ends and means cannot be considered seperately in anything that would approximate a truly moral or ethical judgement. It's possible to make all the "right" decisions, and still end up with a result that is undoubtedly evil - means without concern for ends is lacking.
And, as is often spouted, "the ends can't justify the means."
However, I would contend that the ability of the ends to justify the means is directly proportional to the extremities of both of them. How "good" are the ends? How "evil" were the means?
Massacreing infants for the sake of lower taxes is, of course, not going to fly. But what about massacreing infants for the sake of the survival of the world (of course, something that silly could only happen in a game )? Is it "Good" to leave the children alive, but allow the world to die? Has delaying their deaths been any better than killing them for the survival of others?
While there are certainly (in D&D, at least) certain things that are ALWAYS valuable, I would argue that it is inapropriate to have anything so valuable that it is Monolothic. Everyone should value life. That's a universal value. Everyone should value liberty. But can each of those things give, in order to achieve other (presumably greater) goods, without allowing the decisionmakers to fall to evil? Absolutely. Just because you note that the things are good, does not mean that they cannot be compromised for other goods.
And, as is often spouted, "the ends can't justify the means."
However, I would contend that the ability of the ends to justify the means is directly proportional to the extremities of both of them. How "good" are the ends? How "evil" were the means?
Massacreing infants for the sake of lower taxes is, of course, not going to fly. But what about massacreing infants for the sake of the survival of the world (of course, something that silly could only happen in a game )? Is it "Good" to leave the children alive, but allow the world to die? Has delaying their deaths been any better than killing them for the survival of others?
While there are certainly (in D&D, at least) certain things that are ALWAYS valuable, I would argue that it is inapropriate to have anything so valuable that it is Monolothic. Everyone should value life. That's a universal value. Everyone should value liberty. But can each of those things give, in order to achieve other (presumably greater) goods, without allowing the decisionmakers to fall to evil? Absolutely. Just because you note that the things are good, does not mean that they cannot be compromised for other goods.