The ends never justifies the means, do you agree?

[HighSky]

If I have the choice to kill 1 person to save a million, I will not kill. Murdering someone to save others is still murder. I am not against self defense however, shooting a person who is about to commit mass murder is very different than shooting an innocent to save people. Hurting someone to help a greater amount of people is still wrong. Do not hurt anyone for any reason, unless it's self defense.

[SotiCoto]

No. The ends justify the means, as the ends include the means.
People who claim the ends don't justify the means are cherrypicking what is and isn't included in "the ends".

Anyway, you clearly don't care for Utilitarianism.
Personally, I decide the ends I want and find for myself the means to achieve them. And since I tend towards the extremes of Negative Utilitarianism... I would not kill 1 person to "save" a million. I'd let the million die THEN kill the 1 person to ensure a total euthanasia count of 1,000,001.

[HighSky]

I'll tell you why I do not care about Utilitarianism.
Can I kidnap you, kill you then donate your organs to save 5 people?
Clearly not and I would be a murderer and that end result would not ever justify my actions.
That is why Utilitarianism is evil, because it would justify me murdering you for that result.

[ShadezMcgee]

I disagree. Ends do justify means, and honestly, you just admitted to one in the example you gave by killing someone about to do mass murder, it may be self defense, but you still killed the guy.

I am about the reality of the situation in front of me. The ends will justify means and it will fluctuate depending on the factors involved.

[HighSky]

My example doesn't count, as those means are not unethical to begin with.
Killing an innocent to save someone else or 2 or any number for that face is not ethical.
The two are very distinct, if you're about to commit a mass murder your life is forfeit.
Unethical means to achieve any ends is never justified.

[ShadezMcgee]

If your example doesn't count, why use it to make your point?

Now, correction on unethical as well. Just because you deem it unethical doesn't mean someone else does. And if we are talking mass murder, I agree, anyone forfeits their life the second they try to do ill intent by trying to kill someone else or harm them. However, if you mean to tell me that if I had to kill 1 person to save a million and those million are including people I care about... well, sorry bro, killing the one person to save my precious people.

[HighSky]

I was highlighting that in my example that the means in that scenario are not unethical to begin with and the ends do not matter. Killing someone in self defense who is about to mass murder people is justified.
Killing someone in a non self defense scenario to save 1 million is not justified and makes you a murderer. I wouldn't kill you to save 1 million people because it is not my right to choose who lives or dies, it is not my right to murder someone.
If there was a burning building like scenario then I would save the 1 million people, because in that I am not murdering anyone.
Taking someone's life against their will for no matter what the greater good might be, is never justified.
I would not murder 1 person even if that meant saving 7 billion people.
The ends never justify unethical means.

[Nikki1989]

People that feel the need to own guns either cowardly live in fear or relish being an intimidating asshole, and I have met many of them.

[purplepoppy]

This is why my village has an annual human sacrifice. Better safe than sorry.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Ends are all that justify means ever, the point of a mean IS the result.
But as rob mentioned already, there is more than one way to do something.
You aren't likely to have to sacrifice an innocent person to save many, and in the rare case that you eould need to, the choice is mostly going to be dependant on favoratism, not quantity.

[DextroShade]

Completely disagree, I would easily sacrifice a billion people I didn't know to save myself or my wife. Also, if it was your scenario where me sacrificing one person would save a million I would do that as well assuming I didn't care about that person. Your beliefs make you sound like a bleeding heart weakling.

[KrakenAttackin]

@DextroShade. Yes. Human history is replete with necessary ruthlessness. Only fools living in a modern bubble don't understand this.

[robhazelnut]

Different means produce different ends.
Example: goal: get pumpkin seeds out of a pumpkin
Means 1- cut it open and scoop.
Means 2- Toss it at your TV with full strength.
Both get seeds, with very different complete results.

[Oliverlogan263]

I would say

[Joshydavid25]

I mean, if that person will be the cause of millions of death.. Then are they really innocent? Something about them will cause mass genocide.. And really it can be self defense for others instead of just murder..

[_no_one_]

I feel way too rational for that. I guess I'd save a million if it comes to that. Otherwise death of that million stays in my conscious as my fault. Either way i am fucked so I'd rather feel good about saving a million i guess.

[exitseven]

Usually the end does justify the means. If you have to work a shitty job that might be kind of shady so that you can afford to buy a house it is worth it.

[LiamJHayden]

No, I do not agree, and neither do you as you referenced "shooting a person who is about to commit mass murder." as a justifiable means to the end of saving those the perp is about to murder.

[RedInnocent68]

No. It’s not ethically sound. Even theological systems have plenty of exceptions that suggest the opposite.

[KrakenAttackin]

There is definitely a time where the ends justify the means. For all things there is a season.

[boobliker]

where guns are there yes!

[Anonymous]

No I don’t agree.

[imfreeze95]

I disagree