ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: TheDarkJay on July 25, 2008, 06:08:30 pm
-
In other words, they don't believe the end result of x is enough to overcome the end result of y that is the action itself.
So if a politician is assassinated, for example, to prevent a war and save countless lives, then they aren't saying the means of killing him doesn't justify the end of saving all those lives, but they are saying the end of him dying isn't enough to out-weight the end of saving all those lives.
Discuss.
-
What immediately entered my mind was this quote from Ghandi:
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
-- Immanuel Kant
-
Deontological ethics can blow me. I would shoot my own mother if it meant stopping a war in which thousands of people died.
-
Deontological ethics can blow me. I would shoot my own mother if it meant stopping a war in which thousands of people died.
Of course I doubt such a situation would ever arise for you...unless your mother is some kind of evil genius?
-
Something like that. Oh, and I forgot to mention that I brought of Deontology, because they are more about "Don't getcha hands dirty" than "Let the end justify the means".