Do the ends justify the means?

[Ncik666]

I've done some thinking and heres my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

[Confused]

I've done some thinking and here's my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

I couldn't do it. Perhaps it makes me weak, but if the death of one child is required for all of mankind, then all of mankind isn't worthy of life. To me, the whole is never greater than the sum of its parts. Now, perhaps if I was actually in the situation, I might feel different. I might have the courage to do what you suggest. But could I live with myself? Never.

If faced with a true decision you would do the right thing.

Strange if you can't live with one death on your conscience but can live with many more. You forget that Heaven is the domain of the dead.

Regards
DL

I think McCulloch responded to this before you posted it.

McCulloch wrote:
The thing that I find interesting about these types of ethical questions is not the answers particularly, but that religion in general and the Bible specifically is pretty well useless to the believer in answering them

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

[Confused]

Strange if you can't live with one death on your conscience but can live with many more. You forget that Heaven is the domain of the dead.

Regards
DL

Thats something pointed out by Richard Dawkins. If heaven is the domain of the dead and you're supposed to meet untold happiness there why are so many christian people afraid of death?

simple
ecc 3:11
[11] He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

other translations render the word used for word as eternity or time indefinite. but when mankind was created he was created to live forever with forever in his heart. As a creature of this world we have this world in our hearts. and the though of abandoning it completely was never meant to cross our minds. Humans fear death because death in something unnatural for them contradictory to our creation.

now to answer the questions of this thread the broad general answer is one man already died to save all life and killing one child to save all life would effectively make that child a new Jesus, contradicting all Christian religion as well as most non Christian religions but strictly for the sake of argument i will give three answers . answer one will be the Christian answer for all questions number two will be my unique answer for each removed from all faith and preconceived notions with slight justification and number three will be a combination without justification.

regardless of method used and circumstance. (ps. question 4 is lame so i will ignore it.)

1)no. In Gods eyes all life is precious. from children in the womb to the elderly and for a human to take another's life for anything other than the self defense or the defense of another is strictly forbidden.

2)yes. regardless of the innocence of the child is not taking its life to save your own including the rest of the world or even just a bus full a children a variation of self defense of the defense of others. what loss is 80 years of life compared to eternity for all

3)yes. If one child's life can redeem the lives of all creation then that child's life is equal to the value of all other life. therefore the one taking that life is also taking the sin of all creation upon himself. Taking that innocent child's life would make all human suffering your own, and you would become something far worse than the devil could ever be. If you're asking if I would become a monster to in turn be the defiled savior of all life, then yes i would take that burden.

Ok, you have given religious excuses. Now how about giving some real ethical justifications for your anwers. More importantly, how do you justify the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Your oveerwhelming religious bias is interferring here. I consider it to be a cop out for your own actions.

[jasonm1848]

hardly. you completely misunderstand.
for one i never made any attempt to justify my action as ethical or not.
and two i never attempted to have the sum be greater than its parts. the sum is always equal to the parts. i don't believe in a synergistic union. one plus one will always equal two. but the value of one changes depending on circumstance. the difference between one $20 bill and one 1$. each only one piece of paper the exact same size shape and weight but different value. In the case of question 4 that kid just became a $20 bill that i can spend to buy 20 1$ bills or all the other people on the bus.
I'm saying that not only religiously but according to everything I've come to understand in this world it would be wrong but two of my three opinions that voted say yes. would it be wrong, yes. would it be ethical by any stretch, hell no. if hell existed would i go there for doing it, probably. but i would do and i wouldn't hesitate. he never asked that we justify our response just respond. this is a question that doesn't need a god or a conscience unless you make so. even if you tried to dose it with god you would only end up with all men are created equal which granted may be true but i guarantee that from that point onward your value is dependent on your circumstance. the past were just three opinions here is three more.
1) yes. the kid was going to die anyway. in the case of the bus the 70 years you took from him gave 1400 to other people. the math says its ok.
2) yes. even though the child is not the only one making a sacrifice here the sorrow of 20 families or more outweigh the sorrow of one.
3) yes. because i don't know. because i chose not to think about it. because thinking about wouldn't make it easier or less wrong. because when tens of thousands of people die every day why should i care about one more. why should the one death that could do some good be prevented. what has a child in loss. never has it come to love or live. it would be better that way right?

no matter how many opinions i make on the subject each one is led down a broken line of justification. however the one person that all these opinions comprise doesn't need justification. I would do all 4 and during and after i would never once try to justify doing so. I often find that no matter how many angles or voices a conscience possesses they can all be dulled and drowned out by plain and simple indifference.

[Confused]

hardly. you completely misunderstand.
for one i never made any attempt to justify my action as ethical or not.
and two i never attempted to have the sum be greater than its parts. the sum is always equal to the parts. i don't believe in a synergistic union. one plus one will always equal two. but the value of one changes depending on circumstance. the difference between one $20 bill and one 1$. each only one piece of paper the exact same size shape and weight but different value. In the case of question 4 that kid just became a $20 bill that i can spend to buy 20 1$ bills or all the other people on the bus.
I'm saying that not only religiously but according to everything I've come to understand in this world it would be wrong but two of my three opinions that voted say yes. would it be wrong, yes. would it be ethical by any stretch, hell no. if hell existed would i go there for doing it, probably. but i would do and i wouldn't hesitate. he never asked that we justify our response just respond. this is a question that doesn't need a god or a conscience unless you make so. even if you tried to dose it with god you would only end up with all men are created equal which granted may be true but i guarantee that from that point onward your value is dependent on your circumstance. the past were just three opinions here is three more.
1) yes. the kid was going to die anyway. in the case of the bus the 70 years you took from him gave 1400 to other people. the math says its ok.
2) yes. even though the child is not the only one making a sacrifice here the sorrow of 20 families or more outweigh the sorrow of one.
3) yes. because i don't know. because i chose not to think about it. because thinking about wouldn't make it easier or less wrong. because when tens of thousands of people die every day why should i care about one more. why should the one death that could do some good be prevented. what has a child in loss. never has it come to love or live. it would be better that way right?

no matter how many opinions i make on the subject each one is led down a broken line of justification. however the one person that all these opinions comprise doesn't need justification. I would do all 4 and during and after i would never once try to justify doing so. I often find that no matter how many angles or voices a conscience possesses they can all be dulled and drowned out by plain and simple indifference.

In your first quote, numbers 2 and 3 presuppose the whole is greater than the sum of its parts when you claim "what is 80 years compared to eternity for all, and when you claim that a childs life isn't as important as everyone elses so what difference does it make if you remove it from the equation. If you do, you won't change the whole? Sure you would. That is plain math. If you believe 1+1=2 then you move 1/2 of 1, can you still get 2? And exactly how does the value of one childs life change the equation for you to still get 2? Can you even put a value on one childs life to change your equation? Tell me then, which child is worth more and which is less, just so I know whether I should ever allow my kids within a states reach from you.
If you have no problem carrying the burden, then sacrifice yourself. You have no right to compound your beliefs onto others or assume that others would pay the burden just like you.

You are correct, you never explicitly say your actions are ethical. But you justify them with religious beliefs. This carries less weight, IMHO, than anything ethical.

In regards to justifying vs simply stating your response, that is the difference between the debate forums and the discussion forums. This is in a debate forums, if you cannot justify it in the realms of a debate, then add IMHO to every one our your opinions and those who are searching for truth here can just graze on past your post without bothering with it.

In your three new views, #2 and 3 still give the whole more value than the sum of their parts. If you cannot justify it, perhaps you should reconsider doing it.

(BTW, I mean no personal offense here. After reading through it, it can sound rather brash and I am currently sleep deprived, yet again )

[Greatest I Am]

Strange if you can't live with one death on your conscience but can live with many more. You forget that Heaven is the domain of the dead.

Regards
DL

That's something pointed out by Richard Dawkins. If heaven is the domain of the dead and you're supposed to meet untold happiness there why are so many christian people afraid of death?

Au contraire.
The death wish of a believer is something he deals with daily. When you know that there is an actual Heaven, it is harder to want to stay and go through hardship.

I do not believe as you do that Christians fear death. Believers will stand the tallest before God because we will be less surprised by His presence than others.

Regards
DL

[jasonm1848]

In your first quote, numbers 2 and 3 presuppose the whole is greater than the sum of its parts when you claim "what is 80 years compared to eternity for all, and when you claim that a childs life isn't as important as everyone elses so what difference does it make if you remove it from the equation. If you do, you won't change the whole? Sure you would. That is plain math. If you believe 1+1=2 then you move 1/2 of 1, can you still get 2? And exactly how does the value of one childs life change the equation for you to still get 2? Can you even put a value on one childs life to change your equation? Tell me then, which child is worth more and which is less, just so I know whether I should ever allow my kids within a states reach from you.
If you have no problem carrying the burden, then sacrifice yourself. You have no right to compound your beliefs onto others or assume that others would pay the burden just like you.

You are correct, you never explicitly say your actions are ethical. But you justify them with religious beliefs. This carries less weight, IMHO, than anything ethical.

In regards to justifying vs simply stating your response, that is the difference between the debate forums and the discussion forums. This is in a debate forums, if you cannot justify it in the realms of a debate, then add IMHO to every one our your opinions and those who are searching for truth here can just graze on past your post without bothering with it.

In your three new views, #2 and 3 still give the whole more value than the sum of their parts. If you cannot justify it, perhaps you should reconsider doing it.

(BTW, I mean no personal offense here. After reading through it, it can sound rather brash and I am currently sleep deprived, yet again )

I take no offense even though you could be more delicate with your words. however i think this one is still not being understood . He never said that the child had to be on the bus to save those on it by dying i interpreted it like maxwell's demon. separate from the equation yet able to affect it. even if he was part of the equation #2 simply states that out of the 21 families involved 20 can be spared grief if grief is placed upon the other 1. #3 didn't have any math in it so i don't know what you mean. in this regard i will gladly place an IMHO if one child can save the lives of 20 by dying then that child life by circumstance is equal in value to the lives of the other 20. Yes i realize by that logic that taking the life of the one poses 0 gain and thusly can't be justified. thats why i didn't try to justify it. I don't think I can justify it. And that is why my answer to the subject is no IMHO the ends do not justify the means. It's just a decision I would still make.
to restate that IMHO to answer the subject: no to answer the other 4: yes
And what man can call himself a man if him giving his life would save 20 or more and he wouldn't do it. He didn't ask if you dying could.... but if that was the question it would still be yes to all 4. I'm much more interested in you though. in the time I've been here all the higher ranked members of this site just push and poke other people to get them to go further. You only post a useless response or a reply to egg someone on. Why don't you answer the question and justify your answer Confused? before you point out my failings attempt it yourself.

[Confused]

In your first quote, numbers 2 and 3 presuppose the whole is greater than the sum of its parts when you claim "what is 80 years compared to eternity for all, and when you claim that a childs life isn't as important as everyone elses so what difference does it make if you remove it from the equation. If you do, you won't change the whole? Sure you would. That is plain math. If you believe 1+1=2 then you move 1/2 of 1, can you still get 2? And exactly how does the value of one childs life change the equation for you to still get 2? Can you even put a value on one childs life to change your equation? Tell me then, which child is worth more and which is less, just so I know whether I should ever allow my kids within a states reach from you.
If you have no problem carrying the burden, then sacrifice yourself. You have no right to compound your beliefs onto others or assume that others would pay the burden just like you.

You are correct, you never explicitly say your actions are ethical. But you justify them with religious beliefs. This carries less weight, IMHO, than anything ethical.

In regards to justifying vs simply stating your response, that is the difference between the debate forums and the discussion forums. This is in a debate forums, if you cannot justify it in the realms of a debate, then add IMHO to every one our your opinions and those who are searching for truth here can just graze on past your post without bothering with it.

In your three new views, #2 and 3 still give the whole more value than the sum of their parts. If you cannot justify it, perhaps you should reconsider doing it.

(BTW, I mean no personal offense here. After reading through it, it can sound rather brash and I am currently sleep deprived, yet again )

I take no offense even though you could be more delicate with your words. however i think this one is still not being understood . He never said that the child had to be on the bus to save those on it by dying i interpreted it like maxwell's demon. separate from the equation yet able to affect it. even if he was part of the equation #2 simply states that out of the 21 families involved 20 can be spared grief if grief is placed upon the other 1. #3 didn't have any math in it so i don't know what you mean. in this regard i will gladly place an IMHO if one child can save the lives of 20 by dying then that child life by circumstance is equal in value to the lives of the other 20. Yes i realize by that logic that taking the life of the one poses 0 gain and thusly can't be justified. thats why i didn't try to justify it. I don't think I can justify it. And that is why my answer to the subject is no IMHO the ends do not justify the means. It's just a decision I would still make.
to restate that IMHO to answer the subject: no to answer the other 4: yes
And what man can call himself a man if him giving his life would save 20 or more and he wouldn't do it. He didn't ask if you dying could.... but if that was the question it would still be yes to all 4. I'm much more interested in you though. in the time I've been here all the higher ranked members of this site just push and poke other people to get them to go further. You only post a useless response or a reply to egg someone on. Why don't you answer the question and justify your answer Confused? before you point out my failings attempt it yourself.

If you review the thread, you will find that I did answer the question. I also pointed out my own doubts about my decision. So let us both step off the soapbox here and see if civility can be more beneficial. I am the first to admit that there exist times when emotions override compassion and my posts can reflect this, especially my choice of wording. I apologize that you were on the reciprocal side of this. If you find my posts to be utterly useless or just attempts to egg someone on, the feel free to ignore them. However, if you have read most of my posts or even half of them, you would know me well enough to know what I am doing.

Ok, back to OP: You are correct, we are not connecting in understanding. I still see the death of one giving more value to the whole rather than the individual. Tell me, if it was your child, could you sacrifice him/her so easily for the greater good? I can say I couldn't despite the fact that logically, it would make more sense. I admit, this screams of an "appeal to emotion" and this is a fallacy that I am guilty of committing almost every time a scenario with a child is involved. If it was an adult, I could likely do it without thinking twice, though I think I wouldn't be able to live with myself afterwards. I couldn't even carry out the sentence if it was a child. I understand Maxwells Demon. But I can't relate to it here. I fail to grasp how sparing 20 families from grief justifies creating the suffering of one family. Perhaps I am seeing it from the point of the one family who is suffering. Tunnel vision sucks. I can't see the greater purpose you imply.

[jasonm1848]

If you review the thread, you will find that I did answer the question. I also pointed out my own doubts about my decision. So let us both step off the soapbox here and see if civility can be more beneficial. I am the first to admit that there exist times when emotions override compassion and my posts can reflect this, especially my choice of wording. I apologize that you were on the reciprocal side of this. If you find my posts to be utterly useless or just attempts to egg someone on, the feel free to ignore them. However, if you have read most of my posts or even half of them, you would know me well enough to know what I am doing.

Ok, back to OP: You are correct, we are not connecting in understanding. I still see the death of one giving more value to the whole rather than the individual. Tell me, if it was your child, could you sacrifice him/her so easily for the greater good? I can say I couldn't despite the fact that logically, it would make more sense. I admit, this screams of an "appeal to emotion" and this is a fallacy that I am guilty of committing almost every time a scenario with a child is involved. If it was an adult, I could likely do it without thinking twice, though I think I wouldn't be able to live with myself afterwards. I couldn't even carry out the sentence if it was a child. I understand Maxwells Demon. But I can't relate to it here. I fail to grasp how sparing 20 families from grief justifies creating the suffering of one family. Perhaps I am seeing it from the point of the one family who is suffering. Tunnel vision sucks. I can't see the greater purpose you imply.

I would love to take you invitation to civility. simple the sum of my greater mind set is that no matter how i try, whether religiously or mathematically, the end does not justify the means.
its possible that that one family's suffering if such a thing could be measured would be greater than that of the 20 combined. every argument every situation i ran through my mind had at least two sides and every one of them say that the end could never justify the means. and with that confessed i said i would still say yes to all 4 questions.
I heard a story once about a man who went fishing with his son and his son's best friend. they hit a storm and the two children were thrown overboard. he only had time to toss one of them the life preserver and he decided to save his son's friend rather than his son. perhaps it makes me less a man than you but i agree with decision he made and honestly believe i would make the same choice. Of course if the dad could have traded places with one of them i'm sure he would have done just that. but in situation that can drive emotion so hard, as topics like this often do, I shut down. The heart is turned off. I see myself there like each situation is unfolding right in front of me. right, wrong, attachments, usually none of them have time to be thought of. i don't know where the decision process comes from in that situation, but every time I make the decision to do it.
IMHO choosing not to do it doesn't make you weaker just the same as choosing to doesn't make you stronger. The only problem is that i ran the problems the other way too and unfortunately can't seem to justify not taking the child's life either. Each one is a lose lose situation. also i did read your post before and saying that if one must die to save all then all don't deserve life seems even more nonsensical than all the ridiculous crap that just ran through my mind and down to my keyboard. in the turn would you really be able to not take the child's life if the future of all existence depended on it? I cannot justify either action they are both completely wrong. the only way to know how i or you would act is to put your self there and watch from the outside. and if when you do that you find yourself unable to act then it means nothing more than the differing of your opinion on the greater evil than mine.

[Confused]

simple the sum of my greater mind set is that no matter how i try, whether religiously or mathematically, the end does not justify the means.
its possible that that one family's suffering if such a thing could be measured would be greater than that of the 20 combined. every argument every situation i ran through my mind had at least two sides and every one of them say that the end could never justify the means. and with that confessed i said i would still say yes to all 4 questions.
I heard a story once about a man who went fishing with his son and his son's best friend. they hit a storm and the two children were thrown overboard. he only had time to toss one of them the life preserver and he decided to save his son's friend rather than his son. perhaps it makes me less a man than you but i agree with decision he made and honestly believe i would make the same choice. Of course if the dad could have traded places with one of them i'm sure he would have done just that. but in situation that can drive emotion so hard, as topics like this often do, I shut down. The heart is turned off. I see myself there like each situation is unfolding right in front of me. right, wrong, attachments, usually none of them have time to be thought of. i don't know where the decision process comes from in that situation, but every time I make the decision to do it.
IMHO choosing not to do it doesn't make you weaker just the same as choosing to doesn't make you stronger. The only problem is that i ran the problems the other way too and unfortunately can't seem to justify not taking the child's life either. Each one is a lose lose situation. also i did read your post before and saying that if one must die to save all then all don't deserve life seems even more nonsensical than all the ridiculous crap that just ran through my mind and down to my keyboard. in the turn would you really be able to not take the child's life if the future of all existence depended on it? I cannot justify either action they are both completely wrong. the only way to know how i or you would act is to put your self there and watch from the outside. and if when you do that you find yourself unable to act then it means nothing more than the differing of your opinion on the greater evil than mine.

I can understand how every side of the story still fails to show how the end justifies the means. In the end, one positive result never seems to justify one negative action to obtain it. Yet logic seems to support the notion that it would. I think here is where emotions are our worst enemy. Unfortunately we live in a much higher level of chaos and with the law of increasing entropy we likely will not see any easy decisions in the future. It seems with human nature being so hell bent on self destruction, we are more inclined to see ourselves having to make these type of emotional decisions.

[honegod]

1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?

no.

you are describing a game, like what the green goblin did to spiderman by giving him the choice between saving his girlfriend or a busload of kids.

only you are leaving out the green goblin.

the proper response is to refuse to play.
definitely not to play by actively murdering a child.

instead, kill the green goblin.

although"shoot the hostage" has a certain appeal.

killing a child is ultimate evil, 1.0, exactly as evil as deliberately killing the universe, also 1.0 evil.

not stopping somebody else from killing the universe, a .9999 evil, does not balance the 1.0 evil of you killing a child.