Talk:The ends justify the means

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 26, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

"On the FOX drama 24, CTU Agent Jack Bauer is a firm believer in this philosophy." —Does referencing a fictional character really have a place in this article? What's the point?

I agree, no need to put in a fox drama 24 character here. I suggest we remove this unnecessary comment --Ludvig 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The way this article reads, it seems to be suggesting Capitalism is an extreamist philosophy along the lines of Facism and Communism that commits "atrocities"

well in many ways in it is... Joeyjojo 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be nice to have some examples of this saying on the site.

the page seems to be lacking in any form of detail regarding the key ethical theories that accept this stance

[edit] Theories supporting this view

Grammatical and POV corrections. I like the sentiment, but felt it unfair to single out specific groups (from many) without reference to papers where utilitarianism is directly attributed to the group. Even then, the theory is attributed in some ways to far too many (maybe all) political/religious ideologies. Don't really like the moral blindness bit as it depends on your definition of morals, but left it in (but adjusted) to avoid debate mr happyhour 18:45 04 Aug 06 jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

[edit] Ends-means debate

I think this article could be retitled the ends-means debate. There is another article on ends and means that could be unified with this one. It's an important debate-- and should be in Wikipedia.

A point of interest: Which school of thought would think that after an end has been decided, the means used need to lead to that end? Let's say, for example,that the school district decides that obesity in children is a major concern so it decides to only give students low-calorie meals. The plan backfires as the children do not like the food and get take-out from a nearby hamburger restaurant, and now consume more calories then ever. Even though children are clearly getting heavier, the school board decides to stick to its policy as its convinced that some children will benefit nonetheless.

Would it be a purely utilitarian argument to say that the school board has taken the wrong approach?

Also: what role does time have? Let's say, for example, that at first the children find the food disgusting and they are ordering food from elsewhere and gaining weight. However, after some years, the children have grown accustomed to the wholesome food made by the school and are now even teaching their families how to eat better. In a timeline then, at first the policy is a clear failure, but then it becomes a great success.

My question is, when can you evaluate the success of the means used?

Zoe12345 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)