Quote:
Originally Posted by aegyptos  I'm not sure I follow your argument. Can you expand your thoughts a bit? |
"the end justifies the means" is vague. I'm saying it depends entirely upon what you mean by "means".
although he didn't state it outright, the question you're discussing is derived from a book written by Niccolo Machiavelli called "The Prince." the idea is that one can justify all manner of horrors by simply bringing up the outcome. in Machiavelli's "Christian" mind, dropping atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was ok. or firebombing Dresden. or arming the Contras in Nicaragua. the problem is, whom is anyone to judge? it's all relative. to the Nazis, I'm sure they believed their end was admirable in their own minds, hence the justification of their wicked means.
it's a morally indefensible statement, too vague, and frankly, evil.
the end can never justify a wicked means. if the means are immoral or unlawful, then they are just that. the end doesn't justify them.