Doug:
Here is a question that I have been wrestling with: does the end justify the means? Sometimes? Never? Always?
David:
Like killing a baby to harvest his organs, for the good of medical research? Or lying to the American people about Obamacare (If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.), just so the bill will pass, for what you consider to be the greater ideological good?
Doug:
Your first example is not what I mean, but the second gets closer. I'm not asking whether we all have to agree that something is justified---I'm asking if a goal of yours can be justified by the means to it? Like sacrificing a pawn in a game of chess.
Should a baby be killed to possibly help medical research? It seems that the answer is "obviously no."
Should the remains of a living or non-living entity be donated to possibly help medial research? Sure.
Is lying ever justified? It could be. Maybe you want to protect someone, or, if explaining a complex idea, you want to keep it initially simple. Surely, you would agree that some unethical means are justified to get to the endgame?
Your examples focused on ends that you disagree with. Consider an ends that you would want. Is it justifiable to kill an abortion doctor to save the "lives of the unborn"? Is it justifiable to go back and time and kill Hitler? Is it justifiable to kill one person to save another? How about two others? How about one million others?
David:
The examples are not just things I disagree with. They are examples to illustrate a point. In the ends/means discussion, you have to evaluate the morality or importance of the ends, the means, and the motives of the individual.
Is research worth more than the life of a baby. No. (I note that you mentioned sacrificing a "living entity" for "possible help" for medical research is justified. That is totally unjustified in my world-view, and seems to be a means to a Soylent Green end for the world.)
Doug:
I said "the remains of a living entity." Quite different from a "living entity." I don't think that they should bury living entities, but I do think they should bury the remains of living entities. I know---I'm making subtle distinctions.
David:
How can you have "remains" from something "living"? After all, you did distinguish that from the remains of something "non-living", which makes no sense. Oh well…..
Doug:
You can have the remains of something that was once alive. Regardless of whether something was ever considered alive or not, I was referring to whatever remains. To me, it doesn't make a difference once everyone agrees the entity is not alive (e.g., never was, or now is not). Donating such tissue for research is obviously a good thing, otherwise it is just wasted (dust to dust, as it were).
David:
OK (heavy sigh...).
Killing someone for any reason is wrong, or unjustified. It might still be done, and you may argue that to save others, it was necessary, but it remains unjustified.
Doug:
Good, something we both agree on! I too am against capital murder, war, and the government killing anyone for any reason. Since fetuses are not alive, no problem there. And the remains of an ex-living thing are also not alive, so no problem there either.
But the point I'm interested in is how to weigh the morality of the means with the end? I'm not very clear on your distinction between "necessary" versus "justified". Can you expand?
David:
At what point is a baby alive? When he has fully functioning human parts? When he feels pain? When he responds to a voice, or to light, or to touch? Apparently you've never actually read Roe vs. Wade, as it enumerates when and at what dates you can have an abortion. The original opinion goes into great detail about babies being viable in the third trimester, and abortions not being allowed after certain dates due to viability. It was also full of a great deal of legal rules not based on science or found anywhere in the Constitution. Interesting reading.
Doug:
We now return from A Random Question about Abortion, both asked and answered by David...
David:
But to your point, the morality of the individual at question is the key component. If you have no morals, then any and all means are available for any and all ends. It would seem that an Atheist would have quite a few more means at his disposal, no matter what the ends. I suppose that would explain why there is so much more plagiarism and cheating at the college level now, compared to earlier decades, as fewer young people describe themselves as Christian. There is no higher power watching over them, so as long as they don't get caught by the professor, the cheating justifies their grade.
Doug:
So, your seat-of-your pants hypothesis is that Atheists are immoral and Christians are moral; immoral people don't feel any particular pressure to follow the rules; therefore, Atheists cheat. Unfortunately, you could not be more wrong. Much research has shown that Atheists commit far less crimes given all else being equal.
Some key findings:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/
Ok, so you have no idea how people with a different set of beliefs from your own behave. But what about yourself? How do you weigh the means vs. the end?
David:
You have misconstrued my statement, and totally over-reacted to the comment. I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics". Apparently murder rates are only influenced by religion? Could a safe city be dependent more on their police force, or on the religion of the populace? Perhaps just having someone sign a "virginity pledge" causes them to start thinking more about sex? If Kim Jung Il said there was no crime in his country, and everyone was happy, and an atheist, would North Korea move up to the top of your list? There are too many variables to consider, but when you get your information from "The Friendly Atheist Blog", what do you expect?
Doug:
You could try to claim that there are "too many variables to consider." But then you might end up thinking that Atheists plagiarize more. Or, you could look at evidence (wherever it may come from) and believe a more rational idea is that perhaps Atheists are not anything like what you imagine them to be.
David:
Perhaps when you find yourself in prison, you find religion. As the old saying goes, "There are no atheists in foxholes" during war.
My point is not that atheist don't have ethics, or that everyone who says they are a Christian has morals. My point is if you do not believe there is anyone watching (either human or Divine) your likelihood of cheating may be increased.
Doug:
Project much?
David:
In studies of college students, when asked about committing plagiarism, they all admitted that they knew it was wrong. They actually admitted they knew they could be expelled if caught, but still stated they would cheat if the chance of getting caught was slim. As an atheist, you are totally dependent on your own ethical bearing to refrain from cheating. No one else is watching. That does not mean you will cheat, and saying you are a Christian does not mean that you believe God is watching you, and you won't cheat. But the more you believe no one will hold you accountable, the more likely you are to falter.
Doug:
But the evidence doesn't support that. Perhaps, because like many Atheists, I hope my kids end up learning a different message: "there is no one watching, so if you do a bad thing, only you will know; that will be a bad feeling to live with." I think that there is a fundamental difference between Atheists and many Religious folks, and it doesn't have anything to do with your idea of morality. It is more private, personal, and (ironically) compassionate. And the evidence appears to back that up. Although the current Pope seems to get it.
To the original issue: for myself, I believe that there is no "end" so the question doesn't really make sense. Unless you are playing a game of chess. Otherwise, there is always tomorrow, and more interactions. I guess that still leaves the question: should one always do what they stand for, or should they make actions that can produce desired outcomes along the way even if those actions appear to be against their own self interests?
David:
There is probably a difference between appearing to be against your self-interests, and actually being against your self interests, right? And I think you really are wanting to know if you should do something against your moral or ethical code, to get some desired outcome.
Doug:
Yes! Here is an example of what I mean. It seems that Republicans will be against whatever President Obama is for. Thus, President Obama could come out against gun safety laws, and then the Republicans would come out for them. Is taking the opposite side in order to get the argument to move in the direction you actually want "immoral" (whatever that is)? Or do such actions betray yourself by attempting to sway the argument using a false motivation?
David:
I would like to see President Obama come out in favor of the second amendment. You would likely see that Republicans would wholeheartedly join him in a big hug. When it comes to protecting the Constitution, we should all be on the same page. But you're saying he would be going against his morals and ethics to protect the Constitution? Hmmm. Curious.
Doug:
Guns are a great example of the issue I am interested in with means vs. end. Pretending that Obama is against guns created a huge surge in gun buying. On the other hand, Obama has not legislated guns at all. So, if you consider how many guns were purchased, the manufactured outrage is worth it (in terms of money). But will it be worth it in the "end"? What is the cost of this facade?
As another example, I sometimes think that Kim Davis (a Kentucky marriage license clerk) has done so much damage for the idea of "Religious Freedom" that I wished I had thought of doing what she did. Perhaps she is really an Obama pawn?
David:
So, you're saying that President Obama is a big supporter of guns? Well, someone is certainly pretending.
Doug:
Regardless of what he says, look at his actions. For whatever reason, he has not done anything about gun safety.
David:
Kim Davis says she is standing firm in her moral beliefs. In this debate, she is not altering her code to reach a desired end. For her, the means do not justify the ends. Changing her beliefs to avoid jail is not an option for her, but has going to jail actually ended up promoting the original ends (protecting religious liberty)? Maybe the judge is on her side.
Doug:
But here is the thing: you have no idea what is going on in their heads. You don't know what the Judge's or Davis's intentions are. I have a feeling that you give a lot of weight to someone's intentions, whereas I am more cynical and would rather weigh the act alone. This is why I am conflicted over the means vs. the end issue. If there is no end, then there are only means (behavior). If there are only actions, then that suggests that one must do something that matches one's desires, even if you know there will be a backlash, rather than acting differently to manipulate the backlash. Perhaps I am more like Davis than I would have guessed. Or we are both naive.
David:
I didn't do a very good job of explaining this earlier. Let me try again.
The whole question of ends vs. means is only within the personal realm. I can't tell if your means justify your ends. I can only determine the effect of my actions on me, for my goals or actions. I know what Kim Davis is struggling with only because she has told us, and I am giving her the benefit if the doubt that what she says is true. Which brings me back to our original detour into atheism. If I believe lying is a sin, then for me, lying (the means) has a different basis of meaning than lying would for an atheist, who doesn't believe that sin even exists. "Feeling bad" for doing something wrong is a bit different than suffering eternal damnation in hell, wouldn't you agree? For some things, the means/ends are based only in a right/wrong paradigm that both atheist and Christians may share, but for other things, the means/ends may be forbidden in a religious realm, but not in a strictly moral or ethical one. So, people of a faith may have more restrictions placed on them than an atheist, which would allow an atheist wider latitude for their means, and possibly their ends. Eating pork, or killing a sacred cow come to mind.
Doug:
On the other hand, Davis believes her personal feelings can stop her from doing the very job that she ran, and was elected, to do. If it were me, I would have just stepped down. But then I am a rational person. Davis will be remembered along with George Wallace.
David:
A county clerk actually has many other duties than issuing marriage certificates, but on this point we agree.
Doug:
Woot!
David:
I know. It doesn't happen often.
Kim Davis doesn't want to participate in gay marriages. So, she doesn't have to. The Constitution guarantees her right to religious expression, but it does not guarantee her a right to be county clerk. She should turn over her job to someone else. As George Will pointed out, apparently her religious convictions don't extend to her giving up her $80,000 job.
Doug:
If a pacifist Mennonite refused to sell guns (for the same reasons that Davis said), would you still be supportive of such a act of moral beliefs?
David:
A gun shop that won't sell guns wouldn't be in business very long. The analogy is not the same at all. The bakery owner in Kentucky might be a more apt one. The owner of that bakery has gay employees, serves gay customers, and had even baked birthday cakes and other goods for the gay couple that sued him. The owner drew a line at baking a cake for their wedding, because then he would be a participant in what he considered sinful. The owner of the shop even referred them to another bakery that he knew could meet their needs. He did not refuse to bake a cake because of who they were, or because they were gay. He did not want to make a wedding cake or participate in their wedding for religious beliefs. Do you understand the difference?
Doug:
I understand that that is exactly what the Civil Rights battle was about, and they invoked religion in exactly the same way. You cannot deny service to someone based on their race. You think that denying service to someone because of their sexual preference is much different? I think protection for same-sex relationships will be protected like other Civil Rights and that is an inevitable end, regardless of your means to fight it.
David:
At least we both agree that the ends-justifying-the-means issue is of a personal nature. Whether you are Mother Teresa or Niccolo Machiavelli makes all the difference.
Here is a question that I have been wrestling with: does the end justify the means? Sometimes? Never? Always?
David:
Like killing a baby to harvest his organs, for the good of medical research? Or lying to the American people about Obamacare (If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.), just so the bill will pass, for what you consider to be the greater ideological good?
Doug:
Your first example is not what I mean, but the second gets closer. I'm not asking whether we all have to agree that something is justified---I'm asking if a goal of yours can be justified by the means to it? Like sacrificing a pawn in a game of chess.
Should a baby be killed to possibly help medical research? It seems that the answer is "obviously no."
Should the remains of a living or non-living entity be donated to possibly help medial research? Sure.
Is lying ever justified? It could be. Maybe you want to protect someone, or, if explaining a complex idea, you want to keep it initially simple. Surely, you would agree that some unethical means are justified to get to the endgame?
Your examples focused on ends that you disagree with. Consider an ends that you would want. Is it justifiable to kill an abortion doctor to save the "lives of the unborn"? Is it justifiable to go back and time and kill Hitler? Is it justifiable to kill one person to save another? How about two others? How about one million others?
David:
The examples are not just things I disagree with. They are examples to illustrate a point. In the ends/means discussion, you have to evaluate the morality or importance of the ends, the means, and the motives of the individual.
Is research worth more than the life of a baby. No. (I note that you mentioned sacrificing a "living entity" for "possible help" for medical research is justified. That is totally unjustified in my world-view, and seems to be a means to a Soylent Green end for the world.)
Doug:
I said "the remains of a living entity." Quite different from a "living entity." I don't think that they should bury living entities, but I do think they should bury the remains of living entities. I know---I'm making subtle distinctions.
David:
How can you have "remains" from something "living"? After all, you did distinguish that from the remains of something "non-living", which makes no sense. Oh well…..
Doug:
You can have the remains of something that was once alive. Regardless of whether something was ever considered alive or not, I was referring to whatever remains. To me, it doesn't make a difference once everyone agrees the entity is not alive (e.g., never was, or now is not). Donating such tissue for research is obviously a good thing, otherwise it is just wasted (dust to dust, as it were).
David:
OK (heavy sigh...).
Killing someone for any reason is wrong, or unjustified. It might still be done, and you may argue that to save others, it was necessary, but it remains unjustified.
Doug:
Good, something we both agree on! I too am against capital murder, war, and the government killing anyone for any reason. Since fetuses are not alive, no problem there. And the remains of an ex-living thing are also not alive, so no problem there either.
But the point I'm interested in is how to weigh the morality of the means with the end? I'm not very clear on your distinction between "necessary" versus "justified". Can you expand?
David:
At what point is a baby alive? When he has fully functioning human parts? When he feels pain? When he responds to a voice, or to light, or to touch? Apparently you've never actually read Roe vs. Wade, as it enumerates when and at what dates you can have an abortion. The original opinion goes into great detail about babies being viable in the third trimester, and abortions not being allowed after certain dates due to viability. It was also full of a great deal of legal rules not based on science or found anywhere in the Constitution. Interesting reading.
Doug:
We now return from A Random Question about Abortion, both asked and answered by David...
David:
But to your point, the morality of the individual at question is the key component. If you have no morals, then any and all means are available for any and all ends. It would seem that an Atheist would have quite a few more means at his disposal, no matter what the ends. I suppose that would explain why there is so much more plagiarism and cheating at the college level now, compared to earlier decades, as fewer young people describe themselves as Christian. There is no higher power watching over them, so as long as they don't get caught by the professor, the cheating justifies their grade.
Doug:
So, your seat-of-your pants hypothesis is that Atheists are immoral and Christians are moral; immoral people don't feel any particular pressure to follow the rules; therefore, Atheists cheat. Unfortunately, you could not be more wrong. Much research has shown that Atheists commit far less crimes given all else being equal.
Some key findings:
- "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread."
- "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."
- "Atheists and Agnostics actually have lower divorce rates than religious Americans"
- Teens who make religion-inspired "virginity pledges" are not only just as likely as their non-pledging peers to engage in premarital sex, but more likely to engage in unprotected sex
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/
Ok, so you have no idea how people with a different set of beliefs from your own behave. But what about yourself? How do you weigh the means vs. the end?
David:
You have misconstrued my statement, and totally over-reacted to the comment. I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics". Apparently murder rates are only influenced by religion? Could a safe city be dependent more on their police force, or on the religion of the populace? Perhaps just having someone sign a "virginity pledge" causes them to start thinking more about sex? If Kim Jung Il said there was no crime in his country, and everyone was happy, and an atheist, would North Korea move up to the top of your list? There are too many variables to consider, but when you get your information from "The Friendly Atheist Blog", what do you expect?
Doug:
You could try to claim that there are "too many variables to consider." But then you might end up thinking that Atheists plagiarize more. Or, you could look at evidence (wherever it may come from) and believe a more rational idea is that perhaps Atheists are not anything like what you imagine them to be.
David:
Perhaps when you find yourself in prison, you find religion. As the old saying goes, "There are no atheists in foxholes" during war.
My point is not that atheist don't have ethics, or that everyone who says they are a Christian has morals. My point is if you do not believe there is anyone watching (either human or Divine) your likelihood of cheating may be increased.
Doug:
Project much?
David:
In studies of college students, when asked about committing plagiarism, they all admitted that they knew it was wrong. They actually admitted they knew they could be expelled if caught, but still stated they would cheat if the chance of getting caught was slim. As an atheist, you are totally dependent on your own ethical bearing to refrain from cheating. No one else is watching. That does not mean you will cheat, and saying you are a Christian does not mean that you believe God is watching you, and you won't cheat. But the more you believe no one will hold you accountable, the more likely you are to falter.
Doug:
But the evidence doesn't support that. Perhaps, because like many Atheists, I hope my kids end up learning a different message: "there is no one watching, so if you do a bad thing, only you will know; that will be a bad feeling to live with." I think that there is a fundamental difference between Atheists and many Religious folks, and it doesn't have anything to do with your idea of morality. It is more private, personal, and (ironically) compassionate. And the evidence appears to back that up. Although the current Pope seems to get it.
To the original issue: for myself, I believe that there is no "end" so the question doesn't really make sense. Unless you are playing a game of chess. Otherwise, there is always tomorrow, and more interactions. I guess that still leaves the question: should one always do what they stand for, or should they make actions that can produce desired outcomes along the way even if those actions appear to be against their own self interests?
David:
There is probably a difference between appearing to be against your self-interests, and actually being against your self interests, right? And I think you really are wanting to know if you should do something against your moral or ethical code, to get some desired outcome.
Doug:
Yes! Here is an example of what I mean. It seems that Republicans will be against whatever President Obama is for. Thus, President Obama could come out against gun safety laws, and then the Republicans would come out for them. Is taking the opposite side in order to get the argument to move in the direction you actually want "immoral" (whatever that is)? Or do such actions betray yourself by attempting to sway the argument using a false motivation?
David:
I would like to see President Obama come out in favor of the second amendment. You would likely see that Republicans would wholeheartedly join him in a big hug. When it comes to protecting the Constitution, we should all be on the same page. But you're saying he would be going against his morals and ethics to protect the Constitution? Hmmm. Curious.
Doug:
Guns are a great example of the issue I am interested in with means vs. end. Pretending that Obama is against guns created a huge surge in gun buying. On the other hand, Obama has not legislated guns at all. So, if you consider how many guns were purchased, the manufactured outrage is worth it (in terms of money). But will it be worth it in the "end"? What is the cost of this facade?
As another example, I sometimes think that Kim Davis (a Kentucky marriage license clerk) has done so much damage for the idea of "Religious Freedom" that I wished I had thought of doing what she did. Perhaps she is really an Obama pawn?
David:
So, you're saying that President Obama is a big supporter of guns? Well, someone is certainly pretending.
Doug:
Regardless of what he says, look at his actions. For whatever reason, he has not done anything about gun safety.
David:
Kim Davis says she is standing firm in her moral beliefs. In this debate, she is not altering her code to reach a desired end. For her, the means do not justify the ends. Changing her beliefs to avoid jail is not an option for her, but has going to jail actually ended up promoting the original ends (protecting religious liberty)? Maybe the judge is on her side.
Doug:
But here is the thing: you have no idea what is going on in their heads. You don't know what the Judge's or Davis's intentions are. I have a feeling that you give a lot of weight to someone's intentions, whereas I am more cynical and would rather weigh the act alone. This is why I am conflicted over the means vs. the end issue. If there is no end, then there are only means (behavior). If there are only actions, then that suggests that one must do something that matches one's desires, even if you know there will be a backlash, rather than acting differently to manipulate the backlash. Perhaps I am more like Davis than I would have guessed. Or we are both naive.
David:
I didn't do a very good job of explaining this earlier. Let me try again.
The whole question of ends vs. means is only within the personal realm. I can't tell if your means justify your ends. I can only determine the effect of my actions on me, for my goals or actions. I know what Kim Davis is struggling with only because she has told us, and I am giving her the benefit if the doubt that what she says is true. Which brings me back to our original detour into atheism. If I believe lying is a sin, then for me, lying (the means) has a different basis of meaning than lying would for an atheist, who doesn't believe that sin even exists. "Feeling bad" for doing something wrong is a bit different than suffering eternal damnation in hell, wouldn't you agree? For some things, the means/ends are based only in a right/wrong paradigm that both atheist and Christians may share, but for other things, the means/ends may be forbidden in a religious realm, but not in a strictly moral or ethical one. So, people of a faith may have more restrictions placed on them than an atheist, which would allow an atheist wider latitude for their means, and possibly their ends. Eating pork, or killing a sacred cow come to mind.
Doug:
On the other hand, Davis believes her personal feelings can stop her from doing the very job that she ran, and was elected, to do. If it were me, I would have just stepped down. But then I am a rational person. Davis will be remembered along with George Wallace.
David:
A county clerk actually has many other duties than issuing marriage certificates, but on this point we agree.
Doug:
Woot!
David:
I know. It doesn't happen often.
Kim Davis doesn't want to participate in gay marriages. So, she doesn't have to. The Constitution guarantees her right to religious expression, but it does not guarantee her a right to be county clerk. She should turn over her job to someone else. As George Will pointed out, apparently her religious convictions don't extend to her giving up her $80,000 job.
Doug:
If a pacifist Mennonite refused to sell guns (for the same reasons that Davis said), would you still be supportive of such a act of moral beliefs?
David:
A gun shop that won't sell guns wouldn't be in business very long. The analogy is not the same at all. The bakery owner in Kentucky might be a more apt one. The owner of that bakery has gay employees, serves gay customers, and had even baked birthday cakes and other goods for the gay couple that sued him. The owner drew a line at baking a cake for their wedding, because then he would be a participant in what he considered sinful. The owner of the shop even referred them to another bakery that he knew could meet their needs. He did not refuse to bake a cake because of who they were, or because they were gay. He did not want to make a wedding cake or participate in their wedding for religious beliefs. Do you understand the difference?
Doug:
I understand that that is exactly what the Civil Rights battle was about, and they invoked religion in exactly the same way. You cannot deny service to someone based on their race. You think that denying service to someone because of their sexual preference is much different? I think protection for same-sex relationships will be protected like other Civil Rights and that is an inevitable end, regardless of your means to fight it.
David:
At least we both agree that the ends-justifying-the-means issue is of a personal nature. Whether you are Mother Teresa or Niccolo Machiavelli makes all the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!