Lets have a discussion. Part Deux

[black velvet]

Nalia - We were told that was the right choice, had you chosen either of the other two, the hijackers would have blown up the plane causing billions of damage and killing a huge amount of people.

Personally, I think if the cause is grave enough anything material can be sacrificed lakin I don't think I could ever sacrifice someone else’s life no matter how many would be saved in the process. So perhaps it's personal in this instance to me the means would not justify the ends lakin in hindsight maybe a lot of people would do what you chose.

[ms.naliaa]

Nalia - We were told that was the right choice, had you chosen either of the other two, the hijackers would have blown up the plane causing billions of damage and killing a huge amount of people.

Personally, I think if the cause is grave enough anything material can be sacrificed lakin I don't think I could ever sacrifice someone else’s life no matter how many would be saved in the process. So perhaps it's personal in this instance to me the means would not justify the ends lakin in hindsight maybe a lot of people would do what you chose.

It makes the right decision because of the potenial to cause more harm.

But, your scenairo is nothing like mine. Lets get back to my abstract

[aka-peace-]

The “end justifies the means” was not originated by Machiavelli, but was popularized in his writing. The first recorded version of the idea was done by the Greek playwright Sophocles who wrote “The end excuses any evil” in the play Electra in 409 B.C.



A woman steals a peice of bread to feed her child (how and why she is homelss is not disclosed). Does the end justify the means in this case? why or why not?

Disucss.

the end does not excuse any evil. it all depends on the intentions of the actions rather the consequences of the action. sometimes one commits evil and an immoral act that results in good consequences but that does not however justify the original act. the reverse is also possible where well intended moral action leads to a bad and immoral consequences, however in this case i believe that original action is still justified regardless of the consequences.

in the case of the woman stealing a bread to feed her child, her actions are justified as long as she has no other means of feeding her child. her duty to provide of her child and intentions outweights the immorality of her actions

[ms.naliaa]

The “end justifies the means” was not originated by Machiavelli, but was popularized in his writing. The first recorded version of the idea was done by the Greek playwright Sophocles who wrote “The end excuses any evil” in the play Electra in 409 B.C.



A woman steals a peice of bread to feed her child (how and why she is homelss is not disclosed). Does the end justify the means in this case? why or why not?

Disucss.

the end does not excuse any evil. it all depends on the intentions of the actions rather the consequences of the action. sometimes one commits evil and an immoral act that results in good consequences but that does not however justify the original act. the reverse is also possible where well intended moral action leads to a bad and immoral consequences, however in this case i believe that original action is still justified regardless of the consequences.

in the case of the woman stealing a bread to feed her child, her actions are justified as long as she has no other means of feeding her child. her duty to provide of her child and intentions outweights the immorality of her actions

Contradiction.

[black velvet]

A woman steals a peice of bread to feed her child (how and why she is homelss is not disclosed). Does the end justify the means in this case? why or why not?

In this case the means do justify the ends i.e. feeding her children. Regardless of why she is homeless, starvation is not an option. Lakin it brings the question of why is she homeless, why can't she afford to feed her children e.t.c. which leads on to the kind of society she is living in lakin as I said all that a side such a woman cannot be punished for her actions.

[surrender]

A woman steals a peice of bread to feed her child (how and why she is homelss is not disclosed). Does the end justify the means in this case? why or why not?

Disucss.

i always look at things like this religiously and simply! dont like the whole idea of western philospphers. so islamicaly i think the answer would be no! stealing is haraam. if you sin everytime you steal, then end doesnt justify the means

[aka-peace-]

The “end justifies the means” was not originated by Machiavelli, but was popularized in his writing. The first recorded version of the idea was done by the Greek playwright Sophocles who wrote “The end excuses any evil” in the play Electra in 409 B.C.



A woman steals a peice of bread to feed her child (how and why she is homelss is not disclosed). Does the end justify the means in this case? why or why not?

Disucss.

the end does not excuse any evil. it all depends on the intentions of the actions rather the consequences of the action. sometimes one commits evil and an immoral act that results in good consequences but that does not however justify the original act. the reverse is also possible where well intended moral action leads to a bad and immoral consequences, however in this case i believe that original action is still justified regardless of the consequences.

in the case of the woman stealing a bread to feed her child, her actions are justified as long as she has no other means of feeding her child. her duty to provide of her child and intentions outweights the immorality of her actions

Contradiction.

no it aint. it all depends on the agents intentions
in a case where there is a conflict between what a person ought to do and what s/he ought not to do, the lesser of the evils take precedence, since the person has no other options.

[ms.naliaa]

Peace:
This is not a discussion of lesser evils. You're not given a choice of A or B.
Its a simple debate on weather what the woman did is justified. You said that some people commit 'evil' acts for good consquences but that doesnt justify their behaviour. You then said that what the woman did was permissible for the fact that her duty to child was greater.
So which one is it?

[Oxy-]

Society has a role to help the poor. People often think its charity when logically it can be thought of as mandatory. If she is not helped, she will steal from you or anyone else, no doubt. This is simple survival. No ifs no buts, yes its wrong, but its simple laws of nature.

So yes, the end justifies the means. But the mother has many other options she can think of to support her children. Prostitution being one of them.

[American-Suufi]

that is why you have social welfare system in a poor western country like iceland to pay for the basic needs of every citizenn while you have no-social welfare system in a rich country like saudi arabia where citizens kiss the hands of the royals and are reduced and humilialated to beg them. if a person cant get a job or help from authorities, they will steal to survive and that aint a sin.

[aka-peace-]

Peace:
This is not a discussion of lesser evils. You're not given a choice of A or B.
Its a simple debate on weather what the woman did is justified. You said that some people commit 'evil' acts for good consquences but that doesnt justify their behaviour. You then said that what the woman did was permissible for the fact that her duty to child was greater.
So which one is it?

it is a matter of two of two evils which in the end comes down to a choice of A or B.
and i will explain how, suppose this statement is true

sometimes one commits evil and an immoral act that results in good consequences but that does not however justify the original act
in this case a mother has to steal to feed her child, however stealing like certain actions such as lying and murder is absolutely wrong and devoid of the context of the act. therefore when the mother steals to feed her child, her actions remain wrong and immoral regardless of the contexts because stealing can never be justified. (stealing can never be xalaal).
so how does her actions become permissible you may ask. well this is where the case becomes a choice between two evils.
the mother can steal to feed her child or not steal and let her child starve to death. in this case the child needs takes precedence and it is therefore permissible for the mother to steal but she should be remorseful for the immoral act she has committed.


the idea that “The end excuses any evil” and “end justifies the means" is dangerous notion becuase it can be used to justify the most immoral of acts in which everything can seen as means to an end as long as the consequences are good for person committing the act.


people often misunderstand what Machiavelli meant when he said “end justifies the means”. what he meant was the different moral standards should apply to politics and politicians that is different of that of wider society and not only are immoral and unethical acts permissible in politics but they are also necessary and required?
but does politics require a different moral code from that of society? well that is a different question all together

[Mataan_Ciideed]

ms nalia

the end justifies the means in that particular situation, because survival is involved. there was this story about a man brought to amiirul mu'miniin cumar ibn alkhataab on charges of theft. the soldiers asked cumar if they should cut off his hands, but cumar spared the man since there was a bad famine going on in that period of time, and the general economy was in shambles.

[AbdiWahab252]

The only justification you should have is to yourself.

[Cawar]

AW, just man up and admit it sxb. The end justifies the means most of the time.. in your/our world. devoid of religious principles

[AbdiWahab252]

Cawar,

I live by a simple principle when it comes to life: how does AW feel about it & is it in AW's interests. I am answerable to myself.


Machiavelli was a fascinating character. I enjoy reading The Prince.