Does the end justify the means?

[Sionn Harrow]

A couple scenarios concerning morality and ethics...

An airliner carrying 120 passengers is hurtling out of control towards a densely populated area. There is not time to evacuate the area and the impact of the pland is certain to kill thousands. The only possible move is to shoot down the plan. Should you do it?

Conjoined twins are both certain to die within months unless they are surgically separated. The necessary operation offers excellent prospects of one twin living a reasonably healthy and fulfilled life but will result in the death fo the other twin. Do you proceed? And if you do, do you do so even if the parents do not give their consent?

Patient A is terminally ill and certain to die within a week. His heart and kidneys are a perfect match for patients B and C, who are certain to die before him if they do not get the transplants they need but have good prospects of recovery if they do. No other donors are available. Do you kill patient A in order to save patients B and C? If you do, do you do it with his permission, or without his permission?

A Gestapo officer rounds up 10 children and threatens to shoot them unless you reveal the identity and whereabouts of a spy. As it happens, you didn't know that there was a spy, let alone his or her identity, but you are quite certain both that the officer won't believe you if you plead ignorance and that he will carry out his threat. Do you name someone--anyone--to save the children? How do you decide who?

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Wow...Those are quite the scenarios you have there...Anyway, I don't mean to be taking any of these lighly so, please, forgive me if I should say anything to offend.

The plane scenario, I'll have to shoot it down.

The twins scenario, I must have the parents consent. It is their children after all.

The spy scenario, I'll name someone to save the kids. Who? Someone that's believable but doesn't exist.

That's what I'll do...Of course, my mind can change. I'm assuming you have some answers of your own?

[hoope]

An airliner carrying 120 passengers is hurtling out of control towards a densely populated area. There is not time to evacuate the area and the impact of the pland is certain to kill thousands. The only possible move is to shoot down the plan. Should you do it?

I don't think so .. i am sure there is a way out with less deaths.. And if we try to find out a way probably there would be options.. like a near by play ground to empty it .. or to let it come down at a football field.
But to have the idea of shooting it from the first place i don't think any would .. and it could sound like a crime. I mean if we lose life coz of accident .. people would say it was a tragedic acciedent.. but we lose them because of our judgment - many won't accept it. I won't take that such action. Because the people in the plan has a chance to live ( at least one of them ) and there is someone waiting for them. Maybe coz i put myself in their position .

Conjoined twins are both certain to die within months unless they are surgically separated. The necessary operation offers excellent prospects of one twin living a reasonably healthy and fulfilled life but will result in the death fo the other twin. Do you proceed? And if you do, do you do so even if the parents do not give their consent?

I will do it with consent .. without a concent = NO.. Its their kids and their decision to make.

Patient A is terminally ill and certain to die within a week. His heart and kidneys are a perfect match for patients B and C, who are certain to die before him if they do not get the transplants they need but have good prospects of recovery if they do. No other donors are available. Do you kill patient A in order to save patients B and C? If you do, do you do it with his permission, or without his permission

No ! with or without permission. Unless if the relative give a consent to donate his parts .. then okay... And it has to be a case of brain death.. other than that i don't think any one would donate when there is chance for the person to live even if its 1 % .. But in cases of brain death.. donation is an first option.

Sionn HarrowA Gestapo officer rounds up 10 children and threatens to shoot them unless you reveal the identity and whereabouts of a spy. As it happens, you didn't know that there was a spy, let alone his or her identity, but you are quite certain both that the officer won't believe you if you plead ignorance and that he will carry out his threat. Do you name someone--anyone--to save the children? How do you decide who?

aaaa.. dunno.. ! i can name someone but not unless i am sure of who he might be.. or try to find a way to save kids and get down this Gestapo.. I think a cop can answer this better.

In conclusion.. i think there are many moments that could confuse us of what to do and how to do it. But what matters is to do the right thing as much as we can . And use good judgment in order to create a difference. The end of can sometimes justify our means but not always.

[Ecurb]

"Certainty" is not given to us measely humans. If it were (as posited hypothetically in the situations posed) the answers would be clear. However, to propose an answer based on such hypothetical certainty would be misleading. Nobody knows "for certain" what the future will bring in ANY situtation, let alone in one so frought with uncertainty as those proposed.

[Alexander III]

The end only justifies the means if the end is a success.

I have always taken that as one of the golden rules of human morality.

[workaholic]

For me the end does not justify the means. Because sometimes there are people who are able to get what they want but their means towards that aim is not really good. So that statement for me is not true..

[cyberbob]

The end only justifies the means if the end is a success.

I have always taken that as one of the golden rules of human morality.

I assume you define success as achieving a certain end.

Is working 100 hours to produce 1 unit of food justified if it means not starving?

It does, but if there's a more efficient ways of achieving a certain end in which you only have to work 50 hours to produce 1 unit of food, are both equally justified? After all, they are both successful since they both achieve the mean of producing 1 unit of food.

Or let's say that it will take you 100 hours to produce the 1 unit of food, but if you wait 101 hours without working someone will deliver 1 unit of food to you. Is each unit of time more valuable than the labor done to produce the food so as to not make waiting for the delivery of the 1 unit of food worthwhile?


I'm just trying to illustrate how your golden rule is too simplistic/vague to have any significant value.

[anzki4]

I have sometimes thought about the end justifying the means. And to make it even harder I have though following scenario:

You are alone in a room with two screens and two buttons. From both screens, you see room with ten people you have never seen before. There is no way you, or any of these other people can escape. There is a bomb in both these rooms with other people. If you press either of these buttons, the corresponding bomb will explode. If you press neither one in one hour, they both explode. What do you do?

EDIT: I forgot to mention this; neither you or them have no way of communicating anyone outside the room they are in. They don't see you or know they are being watched, and they don't know about the bombs.

[Oniw17]

A couple scenarios concerning morality and ethics...

An airliner carrying 120 passengers is hurtling out of control towards a densely populated area. There is not time to evacuate the area and the impact of the pland is certain to kill thousands. The only possible move is to shoot down the plan. Should you do it?

Can you redirect the plane or not? Then, it depends on who I know. If I know(and give a **** about) someone in the plane and no one in the densely populated area, I'd do nothing and give them a better chance, no matter how slight, to survive. Otherwise, I'd shoot the plane down, it's pretty intuitive.

Conjoined twins are both certain to die within months unless they are surgically separated. The necessary operation offers excellent prospects of one twin living a reasonably healthy and fulfilled life but will result in the death fo the other twin. Do you proceed? And if you do, do you do so even if the parents do not give their consent?

How old are these twins? I'm assuming you mean newborn conjoined twins. If they were my children, I'd proceed. Otherwise, I don't care either way. Both ways are equally moral imo.

Patient A is terminally ill and certain to die within a week. His heart and kidneys are a perfect match for patients B and C, who are certain to die before him if they do not get the transplants they need but have good prospects of recovery if they do. No other donors are available. Do you kill patient A in order to save patients B and C? If you do, do you do it with his permission, or without his permission?

That's a good one. Do I know and love B or C? If so, let's get to killing A off. Otherwise, I would let A decide.

A Gestapo officer rounds up 10 children and threatens to shoot them unless you reveal the identity and whereabouts of a spy. As it happens, you didn't know that there was a spy, let alone his or her identity, but you are quite certain both that the officer won't believe you if you plead ignorance and that he will carry out his threat. Do you name someone--anyone--to save the children? How do you decide who?

Who's to say he won't kill the children anyway? The altruistic thing to do is say that you're the spy. Assuming I don't know any of the children, I didn't have anyone who I would be willing to sacrifice for them, and I thought I could escape afterwards, let him kill the kids. If any of those things change, I'd pretend to snitch. If I had love for one of the children and didn't have anyone I would be willing to sacrifice, I'd say I was the spy(if I'm not allowed to say me, I'll give up my paternal grandfather). If I didn't think I could escape, I'd say it was me(if I can't, then some near-stranger who's believable).

I have sometimes thought about the end justifying the means. And to make it even harder I have though following scenario:

You are alone in a room with two screens and two buttons. From both screens, you see room with ten people you have never seen before. There is no way you, or any of these other people can escape. There is a bomb in both these rooms with other people. If you press either of these buttons, the corresponding bomb will explode. If you press neither one in one hour, they both explode. What do you do?

Judge the people, pick one at ~ 59 minutes in, then live(or die if you die with the room you pick) with your decision. Also, can they see you(can you communicate?)?

[Oniw17]

No ! with or without permission. Unless if the relative give a consent to donate his parts .. then okay... And it has to be a case of brain death.. other than that i don't think any one would donate when there is chance for the person to live even if its 1 % .. But in cases of brain death.. donation is an first option.
.

So if patient A and his family are down to save the two others, and A's not brain dead, you don't do it? Why not? Even if B is one of your parents and C is one of your children?

[anzki4]

Judge the people, pick one at ~ 59 minutes in, then live(or die if you die with the room you pick) with your decision. Also, can they see you(can you communicate?)?

I forgot to mention this; neither you or them have no way of communicating anyone outside the room they are in. They don't see you or know they are being watched, and they don't know about the bombs.

Also I don't think I would be able to judge in such short time, no matter how I would try, and probably would just at the last minute push a random button...

[anzki4]

So if patient A and his family are down to save the two others, and A's not brain dead, you don't do it? Why not? Even if B is one of your parents and C is one of your children?

Sorry about the double post, but his got me thinking. What if it was my above scenario, and in the other cage would be your parents, and in other ten people you have never seen before?

[Alexander III]

I assume you define success as achieving a certain end.

Is working 100 hours to produce 1 unit of food justified if it means not starving?

It does, but if there's a more efficient ways of achieving a certain end in which you only have to work 50 hours to produce 1 unit of food, are both equally justified? After all, they are both successful since they both achieve the mean of producing 1 unit of food.

Or let's say that it will take you 100 hours to produce the 1 unit of food, but if you wait 101 hours without working someone will deliver 1 unit of food to you. Is each unit of time more valuable than the labor done to produce the food so as to not make waiting for the delivery of the 1 unit of food worthwhile?


I'm just trying to illustrate how your golden rule is too simplistic/vague to have any significant value.

You sir are clearly not aquatinted with irony.

Besides, succes is not achieving a certain end it is achieving what you wanted to achieve.

Your entire response was nonessential as this is an ethical question and you answered as if it were a question of logic.

[cyberbob]

You sir are clearly not aquatinted with irony.

Besides, succes is not achieving a certain end it is achieving what you wanted to achieve.

Your entire response was nonessential as this is an ethical question and you answered as if it were a question of logic.

My point was that your supposed golden rule isn't really saying anything. Certainly nothing useful.

[Alexander III]

My point was that your supposed golden rule isn't really saying anything. Certainly nothing useful.

My supposed golden rule was an ironical statement....