Do the ends ever justify the means?
end justifies the means, the. a good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it.
oop- i spelt then wrong
So you believe in consequentialism?
Hmmm
wot dat mean
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.
So ya i guess
Consequentialism is the idea that the ethics of something should be judged based on the end result or the consequence of whatever the action is. Deontology is the idea that the ethics should be judged based on the actions themselves.
Here's why I believe they personally don't. The ends are almost always a subjective idea, one of utopia or perfection. An example of the ends being subjective is; Nero one of Rome's many emperors had an idea to build a beautiful garden in Rome and the spot he picked to do it was one where numerous houses already were so Nero decided to burn down the houses and build the garden then build new houses for the people that were now homeless. However, the fire got out of control and burned down half of Rome. Even if Nero's plan worked as he wanted it to, the end goal does not justify him burning down people's homes.
ok thanks
Was it worth it? What did it cost?
depends on what you do I did something on this in my essay For example Darth Vader He spanked the kids and divorced his wife and told Obi-Wan ok boomer He also choked his daughter and made his son a lefty In the end he did help his disabled son overthrow a tryant by yeeting himself along with Lord Sithious into the center of something that "aint no moon" But he didnt truely right his wrongs
Was this question made before our eagle was a mod?
Yes why do you ask?
Uhh.... THE POWER OF TOASTER STRUDELS COMPELS YOU TO EAT THEM!
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!