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?
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:
Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.
As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.
However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.
So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?
Many people would say that they would pull the lever. Maybe I would too. Well then about about this adaptation to the dilemma?
Imagine you are standing on a footbridge above the tram tracks. You can see the runaway trolley hurtling towards the five unsuspecting workers, but there’s no lever to divert it.
However, there is large man standing next to you on the footbridge. You’re confident that his bulk would stop the tram in its tracks.
So, would you push the man on to the tracks, sacrificing him in order to stop the tram and thereby saving five others?
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.
