On the Justification of "Moral" Actions

[Lardlad95]

By the logic of George Bush lying to the American public and sending them into war was justified because an entire nation is now "free". Regardless of how we arrived at this point, the action was justified because the end result was...."good".

By the logic of war supporters who feel that the war is not going so well at the moment the war was justified because the United States had the right intent in going to war. The intent was to bring democracy to an opressed nation and there fore the war was justified regardless of the ends and the means.

By the logic of some war hawks the war was justified because we went to war when so many UN resolutions had "failed". To them both the means and the ends are justified.

On the reverse side we have people who believe that neither the means, the ends, nor the intent were moral. The intent of the US was not to liberate, they killed thousands of innocent civilians and sent their own soldiers to die for no reason, and as a result Iraq has become a terrorist state.

However the topic I wish to discuss is much larger than the Iraq issue. How do you justify an action? Is an action right if the intentions are good? What about if you did the right thing even though the outcome was bad? Or perhaps it is simply the end result that matters?

If it is simply the intent then we could use immoral means to achieve a just or unjust means. Regardless of the method or the end result the action was moral becuase we meant to do the right thing.

If it is simply the means then we could have the intent to do something that is unjust arrive at an unjust ends but still be moral because we did the right thing. For example I could give a poor man a dollar in the hopes that he would get robbed by another homeless man, in the end he does, but I still gave him the dollar which was the right thing to do. (For this example just assume that giving the dollar is a moral action).

If it is simply the ends then we could have the intention to do someone harm, actualley cause them harm, but end up with a good result. For example I could intend to kill millions of people, actualley kill millions of people, but inadverntantly create a utopian society. Granted this example is very farfetched but I think you all get the point.

Of course moral actions could simply be a mixture of two or three of these things. The trouble is when this happens you either neglect the third, or if you include all three it would be impossible to justify any action.


For those of you who are moral relativists (as I am to a certain extent) even if morality in of its self does not exist in the real world we still do have to justify actions. So lets not turn this into an arguement about the nature of what morality is, but simply how to justify an action.

Also for the record I'm well awar of the fact that I've over simplified some principles of the ends vs. means debate but it's saturday morning and I'm tired so bear with me.

[RedLenin]

The ends never justify the means. Like your example, creating utopia does not justify the deaths of thousands of people. If we want a world without violence we cannot use violence to get there or we have used, as a tactic, what we are fighing against. So no I do not believe that the ends justify the means.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:55 PM
The ends never justify the means. Like your example, creating utopia does not justify the deaths of thousands of people. If we want a world without violence we cannot use violence to get there or we have used, as a tactic, what we are fighing against. So no I do not believe that the ends justify the means.
THen what does justify an action? DO the means justify the ends? Does the intent justify the ends or the means? How do we come to a conclusion on whether or not an action is moral?

Tecnically we can never know the true end result of an action. If I help a crack addict beat his habit the immediate end result is a good result. However if the newly reformed addict ends up getting a corporate job where he screws over workers, then the end result of me helping him is bad. At what point do we draw the line on ends?

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:50 PM
Tecnically we can never know the true end result of an action. If I help a crack addict beat his habit the immediate end result is a good result. However if the newly reformed addict ends up getting a corporate job where he screws over workers, then the end result of me helping him is bad. At what point do we draw the line on ends?
An extreme example of why reformism is flawed. Of course the liberal, the marxist, and possibly even the mormon would like to get people off the crack. Unlike the mormon or the liberal, the marxist advocates, not that one simply just stops smoking crack. The ends to a marxist is an end to the contitions that create the dependence on drugs in the first place.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly Pop+Jan 31 2005, 08:05 AM--> (Discarded Wobbly Pop @ Jan 31 2005, 08:05 AM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 10:50 PM
Tecnically we can never know the true end result of an action. If I help a crack addict beat his habit the immediate end result is a good result. However if the newly reformed addict ends up getting a corporate job where he screws over workers, then the end result of me helping him is bad. At what point do we draw the line on ends?
An extreme example of why reformism is flawed. Of course the liberal, the marxist, and possibly even the mormon would like to get people off the crack. Unlike the mormon or the liberal, the marxist advocates, not that one simply just stops smoking crack. The ends to a marxist is an end to the contitions that create the dependence on drugs in the first place. [/b]
I hope that you realize that I was simply using this as an example. I'm well aware of the fact that the root cause of drug use has to do with socio-economic factors as well as the shady high-powered operations between third world crime lords and western society. I never assumed that eliminating dependence on drug for the majority involved reforming people. It involves eliminating the root causes of dependence and the root causes of how drugs get into impoverished areas to begin with.

SO FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUEMENTATION let us assume that the action taken in the EXAMPLE was a moral action. I was simply using an example with which to make a point about what constitutes a moral end, I was not trying to propose a solution to ending global drug addiction.

The purpose of the example was to propose the question at what point do we conclude an end to be morally justified. It could have gone with any example, even if we did eliminate the root causes of mass drug addiction. Lets assume that we destroyed the root causes but in doing so millions of innocent S. American Laborers were cast into abject poverty. On the one hand we ended suffering for people who were addicted to harmful substances, on the other hand we put lots of people into poverty. Essentially the initial end is beneficial but the end that proceeds the intial end is bad.

For the record I'm well aware that virtually all forced laborers in S. American drug rings live in abject poverty to begin with. But for the sake of arguementation lets assume that they are before we end global drug dependency.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

I wasn't really trying to atack your point I was just trying to display how a marxist, justifies such an action.

What might be just as good of a question is how do we justify not taking an action. On one hand an armed revolt will likely lead to the slaughter of many a leftist. On the other hand, reform definitely perpetuates the current conditions.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly [email protected] 1 2005, 03:12 AM
I wasn't really trying to atack your point I was just trying to display how a marxist, justifies such an action.

What might be just as good of a question is how do we justify not taking an action. On one hand an armed revolt will likely lead to the slaughter of many a leftist. On the other hand, reform definitely perpetuates the current conditions.
Even still would the action be justified if it lead to the end of the root causes yet still ended up harming people? You say a marxist would justify an action in such a way, but what if the action harmed someone while achieving or after achieving your desired goal.

Justifying non action is something I grapple with. On the one hand I believe that people should liberate themselves, ont he other hand I see things like the massacre in the Sudan and I wonder if foriegn powers taking action is necassary.

Good question

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:39 AM
Even still would the action be justified if it lead to the end of the root causes yet still ended up harming people?
I suppose it all depends on the situation. But in most circumstances I'd say that the end to opressive conditions are almost always justified.

With the situation we are arguing about right now, it really comes down to what is more justified?: Evolution or revolution?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lardlad95
For those of you who are moral relativists (as I am to a certain extent) even if morality in [and] of itself does not exist in the real world, we still do have to justify actions.

But you've framed the problem in "moral absolutes"...and that's not fair.

In fact, if you frame it in "moral absolutes", then no action is justifiable and inaction is also unjustifiable. Since we cannot know for certain the ultimate consequences of our actions, we cannot act nor can we not act "in a moral sense" at all.

You've created the logical equivalent of one of those "loops" in a program that cause it to just repeat itself over and over again without ever reaching a result.

Come to think of it, that might be just what's wrong with the whole idea of "moral absolutes" in the first place.

Relative moralities (or situational ethics) allow you to reach a decision and to criticize it later if the consequences turn out to be undesirable. Relative moralities are "easy" to "modify" in the light of experience.

Torture was once considered a "moral act". Now, it is not. Why not? Because it's unreliable...people will confess to anything under torture and therefore whatever they say will be meaningless.

I consider the necessary violence required to achieve the overthrow of the capitalist class to be "moral"...but violence that exceeds that requirement to be "immoral".

It was "moral" for the Allies to use violence to defeat the Nazis in World War II. It was "immoral" to firebomb German and Japanese cities...because that violence was not required in order to win the war.

And so on.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 2 2005, 02:15 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 2 2005, 02:15 PM)
Lardlad95
For those of you who are moral relativists (as I am to a certain extent) even if morality in [and] of itself does not exist in the real world, we still do have to justify actions.

But you've framed the problem in "moral absolutes"...and that's not fair.

In fact, if you frame it in "moral absolutes", then no action is justifiable and inaction is also unjustifiable. Since we cannot know for certain the ultimate consequences of our actions, we cannot act nor can we not act "in a moral sense" at all.

You've created the logical equivalent of one of those "loops" in a program that cause it to just repeat itself over and over again without ever reaching a result.

Come to think of it, that might be just what's wrong with the whole idea of "moral absolutes" in the first place.

Relative moralities (or situational ethics) allow you to reach a decision and to criticize it later if the consequences turn out to be undesirable. Relative moralities are "easy" to "modify" in the light of experience.

Torture was once considered a "moral act". Now, it is not. Why not? Because it's unreliable...people will confess to anything under torture and therefore whatever they say will be meaningless.

I consider the necessary violence required to achieve the overthrow of the capitalist class to be "moral"...but violence that exceeds that requirement to be "immoral".

It was "moral" for the Allies to use violence to defeat the Nazis in World War II. It was "immoral" to firebomb German and Japanese cities...because that violence was not required in order to win the war.

And so on.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
While I agree that in general morality is relative, the trouble with applying this to the real world is that it allows any action to be taken and rationalized after the fact. In addition it implies that any and everything could be morally justified in the right situation.

So exploitation of the working class could be justified.

Murdering children could be justified.

Raping little girls could be justified.

WIth situational ethics morality simply depends solely on how convincing a speaker the action taker is.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lardlad95
While I agree that in general morality is relative, the trouble with applying this to the real world is that it allows any action to be taken and rationalized after the fact. In addition it implies that any and everything could be morally justified in the right situation....

With situational ethics morality simply depends solely on how convincing a speaker the action taker is.

Not how convincing the speaker is; how convincing his arguments are. There's a difference.

If you want to do something "horrible" (and get others to help you or at least acquiesce), then you must put forward arguments that effectively "justify" the horrible act by its "excellent result".

Bombing the railroad tracks that led to Auschwitz would have been a "horrible act" -- civilians would have been killed. But such bombing raids might have slowed down or even halted the Holocaust...an infinitely better consequence. (Jewish organizations in the west begged the British and Americans to do this...and were turned down flat.)

Likewise, bombing the ball-bearing plants within the Reich would have killed hundreds of workers -- a "horrible act" -- but the Reich's military machine would have literally ground to a halt. (This was done in the autumn of 1944...but not consistently enough to shut the plants down for good.)

Situational ethics provide the opportunity to morally justify any act, no matter how horrible.

But you still have to actually justify it...you have to offer convincing reasons why your ultimately horrible act will lead to an excellent result.

In absolute terms, Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor asked "if all humanity could be made infinitely happy forever as a consequence of torturing a single child to death, would it be morally justified?"

But no one in his book thought to ask -- what are the steps that lead from torturing a child to death to infinite human happiness? How is the latter a consequence of the former?

The "extreme moral dilemma" collapses in the face of reality.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[gawkygeek]

there is no justification of moraly right or wrong actions in moral relativism. there is only acceptable and unacceptable. relativism completely rejects the idea of any moral truth and reality. therefore there is no human judgement of a good action. it is important not to confuse what is moral and what is needed for the existence of man.

[Lardlad95]

Not how convincing the speaker is; how convincing his arguments are. There's a difference.

What's the difference? If I'm arguing that the sky is made out of blue cheese but I make it sound damn convincing who cares if my arguements suck. If people are idiots (and in my experience alot of people border on this from time to time) then my arguements don't even really have to be remotely good, they just need to be attractive.

But you still have to actually justify it...you have to offer convincing reasons why your ultimately horrible act will lead to an excellent result.

But they don't actualley have to be convincing they can just sound good. Politicians and tv personalities do it all the time...in most cases it is in the form of a sound bite. Hell the entire 2004 election was nothing but sound bites that really had no relevance. They just were attractive enough to get people on a side

But no one in his book thought to ask -- what are the steps that lead from torturing a child to death to infinite human happiness? How is the latter a consequence of the former?

So then isn't this more of a matter of the intent and means justifying the ends or the initial action?

[aberos]

i agree with redstar2000 in saying that the ends can justify the means as long as it is not excessive. of course in saying that you then have to open the second pandora's box of distinguishing between necessary and excessive. take the cuban war trials after the success of the revolution for example. the world was aghast at the concept of mass executions, but they were necessary brutalities to avoid a successful counter-revolution. but then, on the other end of the scope, hitler wanted to restore german pride to the country's people, but he tried to accomplish this by killing ten million innocent jews and instigating the most brutal was the modern world has ever seen. in the case of cuba, killing the thousands of people they did worked towards solidifying a beautiful new regime, but, inversely, in germany killing ten million jews and causing a world war did absolutely nothing to work towards revitalising the state of german pride. so then it comes back to another argument of redstar2000's. his critique of the famous dostoevsky holds true in that is more important to evaluate how the means will justify the end. if there is a clear path from brutality to beauty, then this past can and must be taken for the sake of humanity; but if it turns out that you are just torturing an innocent child without true aim and only hope, then you are nothing more than an instrument of evil no matter what your intent may be.

intent is meaningless because it does not determine the result. many people, such as hitler, intend to do great things, but instead commit heinous attrocities. what is important is the end and how the means, no matter how despicable in appearance they may be, lead to that end.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected]Mar 31 2005, 07:46 PM
i agree with redstar2000 in saying that the ends can justify the means as long as it is not excessive. of course in saying that you then have to open the second pandora's box of distinguishing between necessary and excessive. take the cuban war trials after the success of the revolution for example. the world was aghast at the concept of mass executions, but they were necessary brutalities to avoid a successful counter-revolution. but then, on the other end of the scope, hitler wanted to restore german pride to the country's people, but he tried to accomplish this by killing ten million innocent jews and instigating the most brutal was the modern world has ever seen. in the case of cuba, killing the thousands of people they did worked towards solidifying a beautiful new regime, but, inversely, in germany killing ten million jews and causing a world war did absolutely nothing to work towards revitalising the state of german pride. so then it comes back to another argument of redstar2000's. his critique of the famous dostoevsky holds true in that is more important to evaluate how the means will justify the end. if there is a clear path from brutality to beauty, then this past can and must be taken for the sake of humanity; but if it turns out that you are just torturing an innocent child without true aim and only hope, then you are nothing more than an instrument of evil no matter what your intent may be.

intent is meaningless because it does not determine the result. many people, such as hitler, intend to do great things, but instead commit heinous attrocities. what is important is the end and how the means, no matter how despicable in appearance they may be, lead to that end.
What about people who hold that some CUbans who were executed were innocent? Some of them were just grunt soldiers who were nor more loyal to Batista than they were to their paycheck. They just needed the money. All of them couldn't have been true Batistaists....does the end still justify the means?

[aberos]

give me a specific example of a grunt who was in the batista military who was killed. every one of batista's troops who were captured during the revolution were either released or given the chance to join the rebellion and be in the right. anyone who chose not to join turned their backs on their people. furthermore, only the men who had committed the highest crimes within the batista regime were killed, many more were imprisoned or punished by other means such as exhile. so yes, i think that the end did justify the means.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:18 AM
give me a specific example of a grunt who was in the batista military who was killed. every one of batista's troops who were captured during the revolution were either released or given the chance to join the rebellion and be in the right. anyone who chose not to join turned their backs on their people. furthermore, only the men who had committed the highest crimes within the batista regime were killed, many more were imprisoned or punished by other means such as exhile. so yes, i think that the end did justify the means.
i don't personaly believe it, but there are books on the subject as wella s Cuban Americans who claim their family members were killed in such a manner...I'm not necassarily subscribing to these claims...but for the sake of arguement lets assume that it was true...would this change your opinion?

[aberos]

that completely changes the validity of their actions though. to say that the cuban revolutionary gov't just killed a bunch of innocent men and women caught in the crossfire of insurrection destroys the integrity of the movement. but that did not happen, so i do believe that what was done was right and just. i am willing to admit that it is possible that a small amount of peoples may have been stabbed with the wrong side of justice; but i think that this case was very limited and remote. as with anything great, sacrifices must be made, and when you are in a war people get hurt.

and we have to remember that the cubans in america are made up of anti-communists and peoples from the old batista regime who would do anything to degrade cuba's beauty. their opinions, or perjures, can rarely be trusted in my opinion.