Well, you seem to think so. Save your son.

The point you're trying to make has utility monster undertones.

No I'm asking you.

Your list suggests the goal carries more weight that the sub goal. My point is why? Most of your replies have been to repeat the list which doesn't help!

So is your list based on utility? If not what? Why are bad bad subgoals not as bad as bad goals? Does it matter if the goal or subgoal causes more harm?

Your list suggests the goal carries more weight that the sub goal. my point is why? Most of your replies have been to repeat the list which doesn't help!

So is your list based on utility? If not what? Why are bad bad subgoals not as bad as bad goals? — PhilosophyRunner

The notion of ends justifying the means is incoherent (to me) without the end having more weightage than the means.

You've lost the plot, amigo. "Good / bad" – ends don't justify means.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/777050

Ah I see your problem.

Well I gave a number of examples. John want to save one person - Mark. This is an end, do you agree?

To do so he kills 100, this is the means to his end, do you agree? Each time he kills someone, he says "for Mark!"

He now comes to you and wants your advice - does his means justify his end. What do you say?

You've lost the plot, amigo. "Good / bad" – ends don't justify means.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/777050 — 180 Proof

:up: I know mon ami, it's just that in the real world, an omelette in the pan means a (hopefully) few, broken eggs.

Ah I see your problem.

Well I gave a number of examples. John want to save his son. This is an end, do you agree?

To do so he kills 100, this is the means to his end, do you agree? Each time he kills someone, he says "for my son!" — PhilosophyRunner

Then we're off-topic, oui?

Non.But we are going around the mulberry bush, so best leave it there I think.

Non.But we are going around the mulberry bush, so best leave it there I think. — PhilosophyRunner

:up: Good exchange. What was your goal, if I may ask, mon ami?

My goal was good, but not sure about my subgoal...

Casuistry.

My goal was good, but not sure about my subgoal... — PhilosophyRunner

C'est la vie, eh @schopenhauer1?

Casuistry — 180 Proof

:ok:

Well I gave a number of examples. John want to save one person - Mark. This is an end, do you agree? — PhilosophyRunner

It's an emotional one. He's not calculating costs or justifying means; he's just following paternal instinct.

To do so he kills 100

100 what? Terrorists who were holding his son hostage? Soldiers, guarding a fortification in which his son was prisoner, possibly tortured? Innocent bystanders who just happen to be in the way?

, this is the means to his end, do you agree?

Maybe.

Each time he kills someone, he says "for Mark!"

If they're hostiles, yes; if they're bystanders, he says, "Sorry, I have no choice"

He now comes to you and wants your advice - does his means justify his end. What do you say?

It's too late, John. You have done evil. Your son is worth no more to me, or to the world, than each one of those people you killed. NO - and more:
Each one of those people you killed has a father, brother, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter or comrade who now lives for revenge.... even if they have to fight their way through 100 strangers to get to you.

Each one of those people you killed has a father, brother, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter or comrade who now lives for revenge.... even if they have to fight their way through 100 strangers to get to you. — Vera Mont

Yes I agree, and that is the point I was trying to make to the other poster. The means are themselves ends. The 100 people John killed are not merely means that he can pass through to his end. Each of those people are ends in themselves.

I think we are on the same page on this issue.

Each of those people are ends in themselves. — PhilosophyRunner

People are ends in themselves. — I. Kant

I think we are on the same page on this issue. — PhilosophyRunner

Pretty much. People - also water buffalo and sunflowers - are ends in themselves as far as karma is concerned; to evolution, we are all either means or useless byproducts. But we don't just end when we die. Everything is interconnected, every act and event sets more acts and events in motion.
There is no end, until the universe shrivels up into a point of overheated nothing, at which time, I've been told, something begins.

Ah I see your problem.

Well I gave a number of examples. John want to save one person - Mark. This is an end, do you agree?

To do so he kills 100, this is the means to his end, do you agree? Each time he kills someone, he says "for Mark!"

He now comes to you and wants your advice - does his means justify his end. What do you say? — PhilosophyRunner

An attempt at a resurrection of our discussion. I believe you're on the right track. Items 2 and 3 on my list are a bit off, but I tell myself all moral theories are ... a bit off and that makes me feel so much better. How would you have it be then? Should I swap 2 and 3?

I think 2. and 3. in your list are conditional on context. What is the end? What are the means? How much good/bad does your end achieve, in your moral framework? How much good/bad do the means achieve, within your moral framework?

Based on the context specific answer you may keep 2 and 3 in that order, or swap them.

I.E for some moral dilemmas the order will be 2, 3. For others it will be 3, 2. It depends on the specific situations.

In terms of the title of this thread, there is no general moral rule that the ends justify the means, nor that the ends do not justify the means. It depends on the specific means and specific ends for the specific context.

:up:

The difficulty arises when the ends and the means have opposite moral valence. This is precisely what ends justify the means is all about.

1. Bad means, good ends
1a. Kill 100 to save 500
1b. Kill 500 to save 100

2. Good means, bad ends
2a. Save 500 to kill 100
2b. Save 100 to kill 500

Morally speaking ...

i) 1a > 1b
ii) 1a = 2a
iii) 1a > 2b
iv) 1b < 2a
v) 1b = 2b
vi) 2a > 2b

In short
1a/2a > 1b/2b [depends on the context]

Well I gave a number of examples. John want to save one person - Mark. This is an end, do you agree?

To do so he kills 100, this is the means to his end, do you agree? Each time he kills someone, he says "for Mark!" — PhilosophyRunner

I foresee hundreds of mass murderers rushing about with cries of "for Matthew", "for Luke", "for John", "for Adolf", on their lips, and very few survivors.

The difficulty is that ends and means are only separable in the limited mental intentionality of the individual. So what purports to be a pragmatic approach to morality falls at the first hurdle. For in reality saving and killing are interchangeable as ends and means. One might say that there are no ends, because the end one has in mind, if achieved, becomes the background means to some new end, just every effect becomes a cause of a new effect.

The counterpoint to the cliche of @TiredThinker's title, "The end justifies the means", is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." The two balance out exactly, with no residue of wisdom remaining, as it commonly the case with folk sayings.

So if the end is to end all wars, that justifies the war to end all wars? This was the thinking that 'justified' the most pointless war of all time, WW1. This is the thinking that justifies state torture in America today. It is always a false claim because it is only ever invoked to justify immorality. One Does not need to justify kindness with the intention to better another's life, but one needs to justify cruelty in some such way. The good needs no justification, but only the bad.

The difficulty is that ends and means are only separable in the limited mental intentionality of the individual. So what purports to be a pragmatic approach to morality falls at the first hurdle. For in reality saving and killing are interchangeable as ends and means. One might say that there are no ends, because the end one has in mind, if achieved, becomes the background means to some new end, just every effect becomes a cause of a new effect. — unenlightened

That is correct! I believe it's one major snag in the whole consequentialism project.

Exactly.

The difficulty is that ends and means are only separable in the limited mental intentionality of the individual. — unenlightened

Indeed. They are not two categorically different things.

"Ends justifying the means" is only universally possible if we can universalize the ends as being good.

On a cosmic scale, we could think that destroying a city of millions to save the entire earth of billions is considered universally good. But what if humanity evolves into a galactic civilisation and our expansion kills off eco-systems and potentially trillions upon trillions of other beings that would have become the same or have their own worlds they try to save? In that case, wiping out humanity would be the means justifying a universalized good end for the entire galaxy.

The problem is not where to draw the line, the problem is to fundamentally understand whether or not the "ends" are actually good.

What is a good end? The means are meaningless if the end cannot be universalized as "good", and we are no way near being sentient enough to grasp that causality. We end up only operating on hope.

Exactly. — PhilosophyRunner

Perhaps we need to look at the issue from a relational point of view.

Could you expand on that?

Could you expand on that? — PhilosophyRunner

Everything is an end unto itself, but one end could be a means to another end.

I would agree with that.

:up:

Please don't give @schopenhauer1 more ammo to promote antinatalism. :smile: