Lets have a discussion. Part Deux

[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.

[RebelLion1]

Feeling philosophical lately are we?

[Murax]

Nalia,

Think for Yourself


Who gives a damn what Gay so called philosphophers said 500 years ago. Live Your life and draw Your own conclusions

[ms.naliaa]

Rebel:
Im finally showcasing a side of me none of you guys have met yet!


u like?


Murax:
Either discuss or get out.
thanx

[Buhodle-Gurl]

Who gives a damn what Gay so called philosphophers said 500 years ago.

[ms.naliaa]

Who gives a damn what Gay so called philosphophers said 500 years ago.

its not about what the guys said, but I want to see people disuccsing the idea,notion, the significance of the phrase. What does it mean to YOU? how do you define it, what do you use to measure it...

[black velvet]

A decision on whether the ends justify the means can only be made if the cause of the situation is known. Without that information we would be making emotional decisions based on assumptions.



I was at a seminar a few years ago and the speaker gave us a situation. We were asked what we would do if a terrorist group hijacked a plane carrying 200 passengers in British air space, the plane was meant to land at Stansted but the terrorist insist on landing at Heathrow for negotiations. (Stansted being outside London and Heathrow being closer to the heart) The choices were:

a) Allow the plane to land at Heathrow
b) Using fighter jets escort the plane to Heathrow
c) Force the plane to land at Stansted and if they refuse, blow up the plane.

You have 60 seconds to make your choice.

[Keyse_0208]

Makaveli said ''I see death around the corner, gotta stay high in the city where the skinny niggaz die.

I can relate to that

[Captain24]

Even Islam permits stealing food if you are broke and can't afford to buy it

[RebelLion1]

Ms Nalia

Yea, keep it up, it beats the constant marriage and qabil topics. As for your question, more information is needed, does the woman have no other means of feeding her kid? Then yes, I would say the ends do justify the means. Survival instinct takes priority over morality.

[Mr. Yungnfresh]

The end never justifies the means because that same end can always be achieved through more acceptable means. Those who justify the means by the end usually took that route out of convenience, not necessity. For the example of the woman who stole the bread to feed her child because she is homeless, she's at fault for putting herself in the position where stealing was her only recourse. Unless the rest of the city is poor and stealing bread, then she has no justification because her stealing the bread to feed the child might seem noble and excusable, but that would be turning a blind eye to the circumstances she put her own self in.

[ms.naliaa]

A decision on whether the ends justify the means can only be made if the cause of the situation is known. Without that information we would be making emotional decisions based on assumptions.



I was at a seminar a few years ago and the speaker gave us a situation. We were asked what we would do if a terrorist group hijacked a plane carrying 200 passengers in British air space, the plane was meant to land at Stansted but the terrorist insist on landing at Heathrow for negotiations. (Stansted being outside London and Heathrow being closer to the heart) The choices were:

a) Allow the plane to land at Heathrow
b) Using fighter jets escort the plane to Heathrow
c) Force the plane to land at Stansted and if they refuse, blow up the plane.

You have 60 seconds to make your choice.

I would chose 'c'
Either way, these people (hijakers) were prepared to die and to kill. So for them to want to 'negotiate' is out of the question....they just wanted more victims in their ploy.
I (and other people on the plane) should already be expecting that death is eminent in this scenario and to save the lives of those @ heathrow would be the main objective.

But I can see people having the 'if I go down, ur goig down with me' rationale

[Gifted]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.....

[ms.naliaa]

The end never justifies the means because that same end can always be achieved through more acceptable means. Those who justify the means by the end usually took that route out of convenience, not necessity. For the example of the woman who stole the bread to feed her child because she is homeless, she's at fault for putting herself in the position where stealing was her only recourse. Unless the rest of the city is poor and stealing bread, then she has no justification because her stealing the bread to feed the child might seem noble and excusable, but that would be turning a blind eye to the circumstances she put her own self in.

So, in your view whats wrong is always wrong, even if its for the greater good?

[Mr. Yungnfresh]

If it's wrong, it's wrong. It can't be a wrong that's kinda right....cuz that's still wrong. Either it's entirely right, or else any other combination is ultimately wrong. Anything that can be achieved through "kinda wrong" ways can also be achieved the right way, it just takes more time/work/effort.