Do the ends justify the means?

[Theophylact]

Eugene Volokh has interesting things to say:

...[T]he end sometimes does justify the means. Is it right to kill thousands of completely innocent children? No. Is it right to kill thousands of children, or even a few children, as "collateral damage" when you're pursuing a fleeing forger? (For instance, you tell your police officers that they should feel free to drive so recklessly that they are nearly certain to kill many innocent bystanders, just to catch the forger.) No. Is it right to kill thousands of children as "collateral damage" when you're trying to defeat Hitler? Yes -- we're not happy about it, but we were right to fight the war even in ways that were sure to kill many innocent bystanders (at least in general, even if people can quibble about particular instances).

Some means can only be justified by very important ends. Some means might possibly be unjustifiable by any ends. And it is sometimes accurate to say "The end does not justify the means" when we're pointing to a particular means that is unjustified by a particular end. If the question is whether we should beat confessions out of accused robbers in order to make citizens safe from robbers, we may well say "the end does not justify the means," referring to this particular situation.

But as a general statement of moral principles, "The end does not justify the means" is, unfortunately, not sound. This forces us to do the hard and dangerous work of figuring out just when particular ends justify particular means. I don't like it -- I wish we could simply repair to clear rules such as "never kill innocents," "never torture," and the like. But we can't, which means that "the end doesn't justify the means" isn't really that forceful a response to a concrete argument as to why some extraordinary needs justify extraordinary measures.

He was talking about torture, but the argument has general applicability.

There are some absolutes in this world.

One is you can never justify killing children.

I'm not qualifying by saying "innocent" chidren.

That's like saying "Round Circle".

[Ed_S]

Have to disagree - with an example.

WWII - by all I've read, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man. Truman's correct decision to use the bomb on Hiroshima & Nagasaki gave them a reason to lay down arms somewhat gracefully, thus ending the war. This saved countless lives on all sides.
But in those two cities, people of all ages were killed and injured.

The end justified the act.

[Epidemic]

Shahani you would not risk killing 10,000 innocent babies to save a planet? You would not risk 1 child in 1 million by giving them innoculations for small pox before the disease was wiped out?

Shahani there are virtually no absolutes.

[ben-the-slacker]

I agree with Ed_s that the 2 bombs were justified, but allowing Japan to surrender somewhat "gracefully" was a mistake, IMO. Why should they be allowed to surrender gracefully when they didn't fight a graceful war? The pacific theater was much dirtier than its European and African counterparts. The Japanese kamikazed themselves, and killed more civilians than Germans killed Jews. Yet, even today, they still somewhat try to rewrite their history books to make it all look honorable. And we hardly even hear about it in our history books because of stupid politics nowadays.

[Terminal23]

I’m sick to death of this subject. Killing innocent children is such a tool used by the leftist scumbags of this world to justify not going to war. What about abortion then? I can’t think of anymore intolerable thing than this. The left say’s it’s against the death penalty and going to war with Iraq. Yet, every last one of them will scream bloody murder if a woman does not have a right to an abortion. This is murder and nobody will dissuade me of this. You’re murdering babies when you have abortions. Where the hell is the sense in this? Women, who abort a child because they were too immoral and couldn’t keep their pants on, will be judged one day by the almighty. I can think of just two cases where an early abortion would be acceptable. Rape and incest, otherwise it is totally unacceptable. The National Organization of Women is nothing less than Hitler clones and as such they can go to hell.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/images/index2.htm
http://reactor-core.org/nuremberg/dead_babies.html
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/
Killing children is wrong period. Abortion is preventable; killing done from war is not. The idea of killing is revolting to me period. Be it man, woman, child or animal. We will all be judged one day by are actions and then and only then will we know the full savagery of mankind. I support the war in Iraq to save lives in a nation where some people think life is still sacred.

[CERuppel]

Not entirely on topic, but here goes:

Many years ago I read a paper (you tell me who, I can't remember) regarding morals. Who has them, what they are, and how to identify them from nonsense. The upshot of it was that the only morally 'right' behavior was the behavior that allowed for survival (personal, family, tribe, nation...).

With that in mind, just how far along, morally, are the men and women making our decisions on this war? Can any of them see higher up the moral ladder than themselves? Their family?

I hope so. I truly do...

[TupacRIP]

Terminal23 -
ok, i understand your way of thinking about killing babies, but tell me this, if you knew of a pregnant woman, living in the "gutter", and u know for a fact that the baby will grom up to live a painful, hungry, and uneducated life. Will u allow the woman to have an abortion? What if it's a family of trouble? (and there are many) A family that no morals exist between the parents, and the parents do not even have the ability to support themselves? Would u let the woman have an abortion?

the way i see it, if you truely understand life, then u will understand the suffering that every human has to go through, and if the chance of suffering is greatly increased due to an unprepared family, then a possible life should NOT have to suffer through this world.

Abortion should be seriously dealt with, I do agree that there are better ways then to throw the baby out in the garbage, because even I feel sad when i see it. But the most important thing is that not every life is given the same chance at life with a loving family, and even the possibility of education, so if we can prevent a child from sufferings, then why not?

[Mike]

Anyone that justifies painfully killing thousands of civilians is certainly off their rocker.

I don't think that can be clarified anymore.

[butch81385]

tupacrip, what if your mother decided that your life would be too hard and aborted you? kinda makes you think.

i dont wanna hear any of the innercity hard life bs excuse for abortion, i have seen innercity kids (even ones in bad families) grow up to be respectable humans.


Abortion: Living sacrifice to the god of convenience....