Does the end justify the means? Given this particular site, I'm very interested to see where everybody stands on this issue. I understand it's much more complicated in most situations so just generalize your opinion. I for one believe in most situations that it does as long as the positive influence influences the majority and as long as the least harmful route was taken. I know this issue is very controversial so: Let me refer to you to a specific example, the "Silver Spring Monkeys". The experiment that cued more than anything else the animal rights revolution. Sixteen Macaques most of them with fingers gnawed off, limbs carrying unbandaged wounds and in conditions that were horrid. The experiment included depriving them of sensory input from their limbs by severing their spinal cord in either one arm for most of them or both arms, for one unlucky monkey. For the macaques with their spinal cord was severed they physically felt no pain in the arm, it was just useless. A separate group of monkeys were just deprived from the use of one arm. Long story short the grizzly experiments, from which the leading researcher received 17 counts of animal cruelty, led to a medical breakthrough that allowed a deep insight in how adult brains are able to "rewire" themselves to adapt to their changing environment. Many new successful therapies were introduced as a result of this research and established a new more "correct" way of interpreting reality along with consciousness.
a 16 year old boy named adolf hitler is walking down the street, when a robber is leaving a bank. The robber begins shooting at the cops who are after him, when one of the stray bullets strikes the innocent 16 year old boys head, killing him instantly. The thief just robbed a bank, and killed an innocent child. He doesn't know the child would have grown into one of the worlds most feared and destructive leaders, and technically, his bad deed led to an overall good thing. That being said, the end doesn't always justify the means. Because the bank robber wasn't ethical. He didn't know who this boy was, and he had nothing but bad and selfish intentions. Sure, he just rid the world of one of its worst tyrants, but his means were selfish, and his ethics and morals were non existent. His motive wasn't pure, and therefor he wasn't ethical. If he wasn't ethical, than the end cannot justify the means.
Very good, point well taken! I completely agree, so let me direct all readers to the example and similar such instances.
I believe that each action should be judged individually. An action should be able to stand on its own. In the example given, the robber's murder of a child is the action to be judged. The fact that the victim was to become the infamous Adolf is irrelevant. But perhaps that's wrong. We judge people on previous actions as well. Future infractions are more grievous judged than the first. At least in the legal system. Conversely, good actions seem to degrade in importance as they iterate.
nice post some schools of thought: act utilitarianism-concerned with the action that produces the most overall happiness. it is the ends that are of concerns rather than the cause deontology- is concerned with the means of an action being moral rather than the outcome of the ends virtue ethics- primarily concerned if one does or doesnt hold moral virtues within themselves, to which actions are a result of then you got nihilism
Here's my opinion: The monkey's have a desire to live. The researcher has a desire for a cure. The monkey's desire to live is grander than the researchers desire for a cure. No living thing should be a means to an end. Regardless the amount of lives affected by said research, the monkeys were still treated inhumanely. The great delusion of humanity is that we are the supreme species and all other life forms are means to our selfish, aesthetic ends. No matter how grand the medical break through may be, another life (or group of lives in this case) was the cost. Also, note that it is highly probable that said medical break through benefits no non-human animal. Salt in the wounds of all lives slain for human benefit. This has been a very brief post. It's a pinhole view of my opinion on this topic and I maintain that it is just that...my opinion. I hope I have been of some help to you. -Lonely Planet Boy
What if they're to become food? Is it immoral to raise animals as food? For organs? Fuck the animals...I want meat! I want a heart valve! Back to the question...each situation is unique. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Which side you're on matters too!
But does the evolution of human knowledge above animal knowledge justify our inhumane actions? It's similar to saying: "I can eat mentally handicapped people and harvest them for their organs and while I'm at it I can grow them in farms and load them with chemicals so they taste better". It sounds disgusting and yet, we continue doing so to our fellow beings.
