I pose this knowing that only in a perfect world can the "means" and "ends" ALWAYS be moral. Whether it is possible is not what I ask. (Since I believe it isn't, and I'm sure most of you would agree). However, I leave you with this.
Would you feel any guilt knowingly taking part in immoral activities in order to come to a good resolution. I guess that question in itself is arguable, since it can be said that any good resolution done through bad activities is inherently wrong. But taking that aside, and taking only into personal view those ideals in which you (the individual) believe in (instead of what society says is legal/illegal), would you be able to tolerate, or for some, feel good about, making a decision in which a good conlusion arises out of activities that may have been bad.
Originally posted by lioyankConsider this.
I pose this knowing that only in a perfect world can the "means" and "ends" ALWAYS be moral. Whether it is possible is not what I ask. (Since I believe it isn't, and I'm sure most of you would agree). However, I leave you with this. ...[text shortened]... a good conlusion arises out of activities that may have been bad.
I knowingly condemned my two children to death by giving them birth.
Is that what you mean?
Hell no. I feel not a bit of guilt. They are able to fend.
I think you may be taking this a bit too far, and possibly missing the point on this one Star. Please don't let your personal views get in the way of the general picture. What I mean is, I would consider having children a good thing; others may not. I wont go into my reasoning, that's not what this thread is for. However, I will say this. I will try to use an example that will spur as little controversey as possible. (even though I know that's not possible, but bear with me please)
Say that your a cop. You chase down a culprit who you believe murdered someone. Somehow, for some reason, (dont ask me how)the evidence that you have against him is not admissable in the courts. The 2 eye-witnesses that saw him commit this crime on the street are either too afraid or simply dont want to get involved with this thug, and are now saying they're not sure whether the man you have in custody is the culprit or not. What are you left to do? Well, you could do the "lawful" thing and let him go. Or you could threaten to beat the crap out of him if he doesnt confess. He doesnt buy into your bluff. So now your forced to literally beat the confession out of him. After about 15 minutes behind closed doors, he confesses. Now, technically, you just broke the law, right? But in the end, you got a murderer off the streets. So did the end justify the means? Would you lose any sleep knowing you broke the law in order to get this guy in prison? Do you feel any guilt at all, or do you accept it, knowing that in the end you feel you did the right thing, by whatever means necessary? (I know this example seems like it's taken out of a NYPD Blue episode, but I hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to express here)
Originally posted by lioyankIn my moral outlook, the morality of an action depends on the consequences of that action, or what the person performing the action believes the consequences will be, depending on how you look at it.
I pose this knowing that only in a perfect world can the "means" and "ends" ALWAYS be moral. Whether it is possible is not what I ask. (Since I believe it isn't, and I'm sure most of you would agree). However, I leave you with this.
Would you feel any guilt knowingly taking part in immoral activities in order to come to a good resolution. I gue ...[text shortened]... ut, making a decision in which a good conlusion arises out of activities that may have been bad.
In the first definition, it's impossible by definition for net good to come from immoral acts.
In the second definition, it's simply a mistake of the person who committed the act to understand what the consequences would be. The person did not intentionally commit an act that would cause a net evil.
Now, I do think that it's moral to perform an act that causes some harm, or evil, if the good that comes of it outweighs the evil. This is how almost every act in existence happens. There's some harm that comes from every act. I don't call such acts immoral though.
So my conclusion/summary is, by the definition I use, one cannot perform immoral acts and intentionally have good come of them. So the scenario you describe is impossible.
Originally posted by lioyankSometimes they do. Sometimes they don't.
I pose this knowing that only in a perfect world can the "means" and "ends" ALWAYS be moral. Whether it is possible is not what I ask. (Since I believe it isn't, and I'm sure most of you would agree). However, I leave you with this.
Would you feel any guilt knowingly taking part in immoral activities in order to come to a good resolution. I gue ...[text shortened]... ut, making a decision in which a good conlusion arises out of activities that may have been bad.
You should make de decision at the moment you have to make it.
I think it's impossible for most of us to remember the principle all the time.
If it is possible; I don't think that person is very ethical. His/her choices are based on a principle (-> rational), what's moral without any emotions?
Nothing is more ethical than do what is thought to be good by yourself, even if your decision will have very serious consequences...
Originally posted by lioyankThe key here would be to use all possible means, scientific,educational and political to make an arrest and conviction possible. The police would need to recruit really intelligent detectives and scientific laboratory staff also. Just look at the number of crimes that are being solved with scientific DNA analysis and good detective work. Hundreds of other unsolved crimes would also be solved if money, time and enough qualified staff were available.
I think you may be taking this a bit too far, and possibly missing the point on this one Star. Please don't let your personal views get in the way of the general picture. What I mean is, I would consider having children a good thing; others may not. I wont go into my reasoning, that's not what this thread is for. However, I will say this. I will try to ...[text shortened]... ken out of a NYPD Blue episode, but I hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to express here)
Isn't crime combating a lot like passing papers at university?
The police just want to get a conviction so that they can tick it off,much like a uni student will beg, borrow or steal (plagarism) essays/information to complete their essay - both cop & student aren't too worried about how accurate they are in getting the job done.
Originally posted by lioyankTake any person off the street. Beat them for fifteen minutes until they confess to a crime. What does it prove? A hardened criminal is less likely to talk than an innocent man.
Say that your a cop. You chase down a culprit who you believe murdered someone. Somehow, for some reason, (dont ask me how)the evidence that you have against him is not admissable in the courts. The 2 eye-witnesses that saw him commit this crime on the street are either too afraid or simply dont want to get involved with this thug, and are now saying the ...[text shortened]... ken out of a NYPD Blue episode, but I hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to express here)
So a cop ¨believes ¨ someone is a criminal. It is up to the courts to decide that - a policeman just brings them to the court. If your witnesses are no longer sure, perhaps they are really not sure it was this man.
I would be less worried about an occasional guilty person avoiding consequences than a brutal and corrupt police force.