Bitcoin Forum

How are you going to reason out this phrase "The end justifies the means" when it comes to giving. For example, you really desire to help but your means of helping those in need is ZERO as in nothing. So you rob someone of his money and give it to the one you are wishing to help with. The objective is good but we all know that stealing is wrong and is a sin. So what is your opinion on this please. Will you do the same or just won't do anything?

The phrase is good only to achieve goals in the right ways that will not harm anyone. If you steal, it will not lead to anything good, no matter how bright the ultimate goal is.

The end indeed justifies the means, no one really cares about the process and how you became who you are in the current world, Most renowned men in the current have shady pasts but the people don't care. And to your premise just because you want to help someone doesn't mean you have to commit a crime to help that person, Its like the saying robbing Peter to Paul. Morally that's wrong and shouldn't be condone unless its a politicians.

That saying isn't well thought out, since it doesn't always apply. You have to understand the big picture. If you kill others to help someone does that really bring you the good end? If everyone did it, would a world be a better place? If not, why would you be the one to do it?

In your example, robing someone to help someone out with that money feels wrong. That is because it is. If you can't see the big picture, it seems that it is ok, since you helped that person. But what about people you robed? It isn't ok to them. Even if they don't need the money as much, they are the ones who earned it. If they have money from notorious actions, then who are you to judge? You should leave that to the jury.

So yes, if you are smart enough to understand a true complete "end" and all it contains, but since you aren't perfect, you can never be sure of the future, so in practice it doesn't justify the means. You should be a good person first and make sure that you don't hurt anyone, everything else you need incredible confidence in your wisdom to fully understand the outcome of your actions. It is often not your place to make such a judgment.

In the sight of God, we will be judged based on the means, the process, the ways and not the outcome. Anyway we Cannot change the world and all that we can do is do the little things we can to help them with out affecting anyone by doing it. In short, in a legal way.

I think ends justify means is just a slogan to move people into what they know is immoral. A clever tactic to manipulate the fragile and ignorant human mind.
I think I will go with plato and his idea's of the soul meaning that your actions do matter in the long run and it means the difference between lasting hapiness and short suffering or quick fading false hapiness and long periods of suffering.

Eugenics on the 3rd world :S

We need to live without breaking the laws and not harming others, whatever the ultimate goal. After all, after death, we will have to be responsible for all the actions we have done to achieve our goal.

It depends on your example of stealing. For example say someone was starving and couldn't afford food. If you asked someone with spare food to help them and they said no and then you stole the food to save the other person's life. This is a case where this saying could be used and accepted IMO, the sin of stealing some food is greatly outweighed by the saving of the other person's life.

Situational ethics and pragmatism have penetrated the thinking and life of many believers. It is a belief in philosophy that the right or wrong choice or action is dependent on the situation. There are no absolute things, there is only the "good" what is produced from that action. "Good" depends on the benefits for yourself or others.situational ethics and pragmatism assume that the Ten Commandments can not be the reference standard for deciding what is right or wrong. Instead, one must do what is pragmatic.

The end justifies the means very and very rare
If u want to get rich u sholdnt to sacrifice yor family, for example

I think it would have to be a specific situation for me to use that as my reasoning. For instance, I have problem stealing and hurting somebody who is an killer, pedo, or something

of that nature. Then only if I would take whatever I got from them and given it to somebody in need would I use that phrase. Other than that scenario and ones similar to it, I

cannot really see good use case for that phrase.

When a person steal money to his friend because his sister is hungry and he wants to buy her foods. But whatever reasons he have, he still commit a sin and he deserve to be jailed. That is the meaning of "The end justifies the means". Whatever reasons a person have it will be disregarded in the end.

In an ideal world, the means should also justify the means. Intentions means nothing if how to get there isn't moral. That is in an ideal world. Since we're not, lets look into robin hood. He steals from the rich to give to the poor. In another point of view, we will do something bad. Just as long as you believe that you are on the right, your end justified your means

The phrase can not be complete without the right interpretation, when you said the end justify the means so many people misunderstood the real meaning. What it actually mean to me is that what ever you are doing in the right sense and judgment no matter what the challenges are if you can hold on till the end in victory, every one will judge you by the end result which is your victory.

I have to agree... This statement mainly focuses on an ideal or a principle you are holding. If your principle wasn't compromised, then your end justified your means. Although alot of people will take it further. Case and point the extremists (not the iron man reference by the way)

For me, the process isn't the one that's important, it's the result that has a higher value. If you want to help others by doing bad things, then it may be considered as a good thing. Like killing a person, you can kill a person if you're only protecting someone that they might be wanting to do something bad on. Take for example killing a criminal who is pointing a gun towards your beloved one, due to your instincts you accidentally kill the criminal, at first it sounds like a bad thing but if you look on the result it is not. You only wanted to protect which is a good thing.

It means that... to reach to a certain point, it's okay to do some extreme things
In other words: the result is worth the present consequences

It doesn't have to be forced. If you want to help, you're not going to be of much help by getting yourself into trouble. The intention is noble but the way you plan to do it would put another person in need of help.

Well, i absolutely will not do this kinda thing, because taking things from other is not good, and i am shame of it 

The “ends justifying the means” usually involves doing something wrong to achieve a positive end and justifying the wrongdoing

In the history of politics I cannot recall many politicians who didn't in one way or another apply this principle of Macchiavelli.

This is a phrase which is especially valid in politics, I think that in normal life one should act more morally.

The end justify the means can also be compared to Karma. What ever you do to someone, comes back to you. Same with what goes around, comes around. Or on whatever you do, may it be for the goodness of another,

No , i will not do the same , if someone needs money  but i don't have enough money , i will borrow money from my friends and give it to him .
if my friends don't have money , I think I would not do anything instead of doing bad things

The stated example fits to the phrase "the justifies the means" but the problem is you stated the wrong phrase, it should be "the end does not justify the means. It is actually a basis of morality and there are 3 of them. The first is "do good, avoid evil", second one is "if confronted with two evils, choose the lesser evil and the last "the end does not justify the means". Np matter how good are our intentions maybe if the means or the act is wrong then it is always wrong.

I agree...our goal can justify the means, if it doesn't harm others...otherwise - we are responsible for it

In my first year in the university I didn’t start lecture until two weeks to the 1st semester’s examination because of issues with supplementary admission list which also affected me. Some people who started lecture earlier and were doing quite well before I was able to sort myself out could not graduate for one reason or the other. In life some people start quite well but could not end well or even finish what they started. With perseverance and faith some notable personalities, big churches, businesses, etc. have developed to the height they are today from nothing. The end they say justifies the means.   

for no. i will not do it. cause stealing or robbing is againts the law. if you one to help somebody yoy can do it in the other way and not in the bad way.

Absolutely! Some things in life can never be justified, IMO

The end justifies the means is words that we have hard several times and I don't think we should do evil to favour the end and think we are doing the right thing.  If you do something legitimate, that is when the end justified the means.

I've recently been reading 'Confessions of an economic hitman'. I think the phrase The end justifies the means is relevant to what was happening in the situations in that book. Economic hitman would be like vultures in the sky looking for countries which were seeking development to appease the local people and prevent from regime change, civil war, etc. These countries would be given huge amounts of investment in the shape of loans, which the economic hitman would model situations which they hope they would either have to go into huge amounts of debt or the countries would have to allow the building of army bases, huge discounts on oil, being sympathetic to American interests and needs, etc as a way to slow down the debt the country incurred. 'the end justifies the means' in this situation due to the quality of life the local people would benefit from the newly built schools, airports, oil pipelines, etc which would hopefully after many years, be able to pay off.

Is the situation ideal? no, ultimately only the construction contractors, and the assets the Americans controlled in the country ultimately benefited. but on the back of that scenario the local government were able to satisfy the needs of the local people, stay seated in power, and improve literacy, technical and academic levels.

There could be many situations where this situation could apply. I recently saw an extreme example of this. My friend is training in the US Army. He posted a photo from a slideshow during training about neutralizing nuclear threats. It said that when they are trying to neutralize nuclear threats, they should do it at all costs, even if that includes civilian lives. I guess the idea is that even if a few civilians die, neutralizing a nuclear weapon may prevent an attack that would kill many more people. That is the means justifying the end.

There's a famous experiment similar to this. It's called the trolley dilemma. It goes like this:

Many people would say that they would pull the lever. Maybe I would too. Well then about about this adaptation to the dilemma?

I think most people would probably hesitate in this case, but the outcome would be just about the same in both cases. It's an example of the end possibly justifying the means. Something worth thinking about.