Do moral ends ever justify immoral means?

Question

Is it ever possible?

Answer 1

if there is any immorality any where in the entire process the entire process is immoral.

Immorality is unjustifiable. it is quite simply in the opposite direction to progress.

Answer 2

I don't think it is possible.

If the means are immoral, there can not be a moral end.

if you traveled through a dirty path to your home, there is no way you can become clean after reaching your home/destination.

Thank you for asking dear

Answer 3

I think so.

When you look at the direct propositioning of that question, you are inclined to say no - as the first answerer did, that is, in the assumption that if immorality was involved, the end cannot possibly be moral.

However - as mentioned, it IS all relative.

The term "for the greater good" comes to mind.

The atomic bombs at the end of WW2 are a prime example - and again, I feel as if I'm plagiarising. But - although a distasteful decision to make - ultimately history has shown they were the right decision.

I recently watched a documentary on the Great Plague in Britain in the 1600s...I saw how it spread from village to village - and how people learnt what it was and how basically, death was assured and a spread certain.

In on particular village, a travelling salesman came to town. Unfortunately, with his wares he brought the plague - as the villagers realised when he fell ill with it. A town meeting was held and the mayor made the undoubtedly difficult decision - to seal the village off, to it's own doom. People were NOT to leave or enter - until the plague had run it's course.

Many would feel this was immoral - how could he sentence many of his own people to certain death rather than give them a chance to escape the village and perhaps escape the plague?

But in the end it was a highly courageous and moral end - because although most of the population did die, the plague was not spread to neighbouring villages - and once it had run its course, people were safe to visit again...

So I think in relativity, they can and do justify immoral means.

A lot of it depends on what you see as moral and immoral. Some people see selflessness (such as that of the mayor) as immoral - while others would see his initial decision as moral (which would, of course, void my argument there). So see what I mean about personal perspective.

So - in certain cases, they do. Especially and probably primarily, where the greater good is the result.  

Answer 4

This is a fundamental Q in ethics and there other versions of it! Kant argued the point well. So did Jesus!

My ethics, like theirs, says no! Using nukes today after we saw what the nukes did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be immoral means under any circumstance and for any reason now. Pre-emptive War, the Bush43 policy, is an immoral means to peace if there are non-violent alternatives. Having said that it may be that the means are immoral yet knowing that they are only comes from the first time you do it. Killing innocent civilians or sacrificing your own soldiers to win a war are immoral means to an end. (Starting & winning a war is not a moral means in itself as it depends on the reasons you started the war and to what ends.)  Ethical or Moral reasoning is not easy and few rules can be expressed w/o exception. (Use of Nukes in self-defense to avoid extinction is possibly moral but not if it means it leads to self-extinction. For example, I am nuked and I retaliate to destroy your nukes is a moral means. But retaliating by nuking the civilian population is not a moral means. It is also not a moral means to an end to become a suicide bomber targeting & killing civilians to force change.

I am a virtues theorist and I try to avoid the numbers game in different versions Utilitarianism and various forms of Consequentialism. I also find amoral American Pragmatism & Scientism w/o a metaphysics and a concept of what a person is, hard to swallow. The "who"-part matters to me! Disembodied moral analyses of Actions w/o reference to the "who" who acts and the who that suffers is an immoral means to the Good.

BTW, I have come to the conclusion that there are no just wars and there are not pure just victors! But that is another topic for later.

Answer 5

If no one ever let the ends justify the means, then mankind wouldn't exist as we know it because our leaders wouldn't have been able to plan ahead.  Decisions for the greater good cannot always be moral.  

When an animal kills another animal to survive, is that a sin?

Is survival a sin?

If you had to steal money to buy medicine for your loved-one to live, would you do it?

If you knew that assassinating one man would mean the survival of 1000 people that he would kill..............would you do it?

People always preach morality but have no appreciation for the liberties and freedoms they enjoy because of immoral acts that benefited mankind in the long run.

Answer 6

Yes.

If you had to kill one person to save 1,000 would you do it?

What if that one person was related to you?

It's all relative.