Does the end always justify the means?

[sean]

The first cadavers used in medical school weren't donated, as that was taboo at the time, so doctors and schools had to pay grave robbers to go out and dig 'em up. But the passage of the 1832 Anatomy Act in England and similar bills in America allowed for cadavers to be obtained for medical research from a number of sources, particularly the poor and the unclaimed.

So it makes me wonder, where do we draw the line? Do you believe that the end always justifies the means?

If they're already dead anyway, I don't really care if the person dissecting them is having fun, crying in sadness, or completely emotionless.

Consequentialism on the other hand is a boorish moral system. It's so vague that isn't barely even worth using in a rational argument. You could apply it to almost anything and convince yourself that a certain action is justified. These ideas were at the forefront of the civil rights movements and thus, the modern day left.

Just because you perform a specific means, doesn't mean you're guaranteed to reach the ends. If your means cause a buttload of collateral damage and conflict, you could end up missing the target and just making things worse.

[JamesBond007]

I’ve noticed myself understanding the phrase “sacrifice a few for the good of many” lately although I’ve always considered myself a highly moral person.

Great example.

I'll sell you and Frank Grimes down the river for being ethnic Catholic monkeys. Frank Grimes want to put me in a modern Catholic monkey inquisition cage through psychiatry but he will fail of course because he is not a WASP :

Ah , yeah, Methodist of WASP DNA got the power bitch the only Catholic Irish monkey of the USA was assasinated by the Protestant CIA :

Target: Jamesbond_scaled
Distance: 1.9624% / 0.01962356
42.8 England_IA (England Iron Age)
32.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Pre_Christian (Scandinavian Germanic)
25.2 SVK_Poprad_MA (Vandal Germanic)

[Celestia]

I'll sell you and Frank Grimes down the river for being ethnic Catholic monkeys. Frank Grimes want to put me in a modern Catholic monkey inquisition cage through psychiatry but he will fail of course because he is not a WASP :

Ah , yeah, Methodist of WASP DNA got the power bitch the only Catholic Irish monkey of the USA was assasinated by the Protestant CIA :

Target: Jamesbond_scaled
Distance: 1.9624% / 0.01962356
42.8 England_IA (England Iron Age)
32.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Pre_Christian (Scandinavian Germanic)
25.2 SVK_Poprad_MA (Vandal Germanic)

Ok so where does Southern Baptist fit on your scale of religious monkeys

[Daco Celtic]

Imagine the amazing variety of immoral deeds carried out for a certain end.

[Anglo-Celtic]

It doesn't, and we should strive to make logic and morality define the lines that must not be crossed. Admittedly, there's a wide range of choices that could fit within those lines, but there must be limits on what's acceptable, in order to preserve our humanity. Japanese war criminals had no *ethical* lines that kept them from committing egregious sins, but they minimized their crimes with the claim that their ends justified their means. The main question is "at what point does the point of no return start?".

[Anglo-Celtic]

Ok so where does Southern Baptist fit on your scale of religious monkeys

They think that Evangelical Protestants are clowns or heretics. Their churches don't adhere to bloodless conformity that lacks soul. Just do the traditional routines by rote with no regard to the real presence of the Divine. Just look down on "backwards" Americans who need more than customary nods to traditional activities.

[coolfrenchguy]

It doesn't, and we should strive to make logic and morality define the lines that must not be crossed. Admittedly, there's a wide range of choices that could fit within those lines, but there must be limits on what's acceptable, in order to preserve our humanity. Japanese war criminals had no *ethical* lines that kept them from committing egregious sins, but they minimized their crimes with the claim that their ends justified their means. The main question is "at what point does the point of no return start?".

I will join you on the fact than for many so called economical/ethnical/religious/political reasons,millions have been exterminated , i will not name it a particular one ,but if you look back the human history,twisted ends have been always sustained by twisted means,unfortunatly we are not in the wisdom mood of star trek but we still leaving on the ashes of thousands exterminated individuals because the culture of death is a very good buisiness,puppeted by the less philanthropic rotten people on earth

[Anglo-Celtic]

I will join you on the fact than for many so called economical/ethnical/religious/political reasons,millions have been exterminated , i will not name it a particular one ,but if you look back the human history,twisted ends have been always sustained by twisted means,unfortunatly we are not in the wisdom mood of star trek but we still leaving on the ashes of thousands exterminated individuals because the culture of death is a very good buisiness,puppeted by the less philanthropic rotten people on earth

That's why we need clear limits, and that's why we need to learn from past mistakes. We're repeating them right now, and Australia and Canada are just two examples. They use COVID-19 as an excuse to destroy civil rights of healthy people. Their *claimed* ends "justify" their dictatorial means.

[Sarin]

Depends on what the means are & what the end is . For instance in quoted instance , the end imo far outweighs what they might say dishonouring the dead (which for me is nothing but inanimate,decaying matter) & criminal trespass* etc . Now they may put " what if it is your dear one ? " Well , I'll consider trading it for money only to point blank donate it in toto to a noble,humanitarian cause & fetch the departed a good deal . " What about maggots , the food chain haan ? " Well , I'll forward this wacky one to TA or some aghori .

(*though to contain any social disorder , criminal trend etc , I would have strongly favoured legislative regulations but that's not the point here)

[Celestia]

Depends on what the means are & what the end is . For instance in quoted instance , the end imo far outweighs what they might say dishonouring the dead (which for me is nothing but inanimate,decaying matter) & criminal trespass* etc . Now they may put " what if it is your dear one ? " Well , I'll consider trading it for money only to point blank donate it in toto to a noble,humanitarian cause & fetch the departed a good deal . " What about maggots , the food chain haan ? " Well , I'll forward this wacky one to TA or some aghori .

(*though to contain any social disorder , criminal trend etc , I would have strongly favoured legislative regulations but that's not the point here)

I really like your points.
It makes me question if situations are only considered immoral when it’s personal.
Would it truly affect me if someone robbed a gravesite of a stranger? No.
Would it truly affect me if someone robbed my loved ones gravesite? Yes.

Perhaps one could argue that it is immoral to prevent unethical studies from taking place and that some are necessary for the growth and development for future generations.