Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
lesswrong.com
Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#2A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#3The means produce the ends.
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#4A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.
By running under the paradigm that they assume they are flawed? That's the core claim in there.
>..if we respect our fellows' human rights
This is a problematic clause. Whose rights do you disrespect: the one you pushed, or the 5 you could have saved?
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#5A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.
There's the rub though. How do you respect others' rights? Would enslaving 10 people to set 100 free not be respecting others' rights (at least in the long term)? Now you can argue whether or not that's the right way to respect others' rights, but it's respecting the rights of others nonetheless.
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#6The means produce the ends.
[deleted]
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#7A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.
There's the rub though. How do you respect others' rights? Would enslaving 10 people to set 100 free not be respecting others' rights (at least in the long term)? Now you can argue whether or not that's the right way to respect others' rights, but it's respecting the rights of others nonetheless.
Rights are characters of the individual, even if the individual lives in a social context. So those 10 have as much rights as those 100. Sacrificing the few for the sake of the many means you yourself are never justifiably safe, you can always be in the minority.
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#8The ends are the only way to justify the means; what the sloppy thinkers who recite "The ends don't justify the means" really seem to mean is that some means are not justifiable. Which is undeniably true, but because they don't really think their position/slogan through, they often end up gathering a bunch of nonsense along with it.
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#9The ends are the only way to justify the means; what the sloppy thinkers who recite "The ends don't justify the means" really seem to mean is that some means are not justifiable. Which is undeniably true, but because they don't really think their position/slogan through, they often end up gathering a bunch of nonsense along with it.
You're right. Slaughtering 20 junior school students and a crossing guard are not acceptable means to get your daughter from school to her dentist appointment on time.
It is however acceptable to kill 20 enemy combatants to rescue a dignitary from a besieged embassy.
Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)
#10A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.
What do you mean by that? Why is it so? What is a "right", in fact?
You've just offered another slogan. You're going to have to work harder than that if you want to argue against consequentialism --- the idea that what matters are the consequences of each action, not the principles it contravenes.