Politics: Do the "ends justify the means?"

Post Reply New Topic

I'm looking for people's personal opinions on the subject of whether you personally believe the "ends justify the means" or not. Why or why not?

I'll explain:

If for example there is a person in power politically (this is more of a general question rather than specific to the current political climate but I will use Trump as an example because he's the current president), that you believe very firmly is dangerous to the country, is it OK in your opinion for those than can to use any means necessary (legal or illegal) to remove the person?

If illegal means can be used to remove that person from office, do you believe the preservation of the "greater good" justifies using illegal means to reach that end goal?

I'm curious as to how people feel about that question in general and, again, not specific to Trump. It could apply to any person in political power, present or future.

Here are a few examples of what I'm asking about: These examples are NOT political party specific. They could apply to any party equally.

Example: A politician is running for election/reelection. The opposing party members are convinced the politician would be dangerous and deleterious if the politician wins. The opposing party knowingly and deliberately creates ads that include false, defamatory and slanderous information as "facts". It's decided that any legal repercussions that may result are worth it if the politician loses. Do the illegal means justify the end goal of that politician losing? Why or why not?

Example: A presidential election is being held (this example, therefore, has no implication to the mid-term election that just ended. It's a hypothetical). A large portion of the country as well as the opposition political party to that presidential candidate believe unequivocally that the candidate would be dangerous and deleterious to the country. The opposition's candidate had an extremely small lead nationally. In a particular state, the lead was down to a few hundred votes making the results in a particular voting precinct in that state have a potential national impact A voting volunteer aligned with the party opposed to that candidate they deem to be dangerous and trailing by the thinnest of margins hides and later destroys uncounted boxes of hundreds and hundreds of ballots. That volunteer's candidate wins as a result and the "dangerous" candidate loses. Do the illegal means justify the end goal of that politician losing? Why or why not?

Sure, mere "justification" is relative to a person, not necessarily logical, rational, common, or even make sense.

In the movie, "Watchmen", [XXXXXXXXXXXXX (removed spoiler)] decides that "killing millions to save billions" is justified, and the end result of world peace justifies the means of killing millions of people with nuclear weapons.

Despite the grotesque nature of it, it's a justification of "the ends justify the means".

I'm usually weary of people who say the ends justify the means because sometimes the cost is real but the end goal is imaginary. Pol Pot thought killing millions would save billions from capitalism after he succeeded in spreading communism from Cambodia to the whole world. The cost was real but the end goal was imaginary. There was no chance he would ever create a global communist utopia. That was a fantasy in Pol-Pot's head. But the price two million Cambodians paid on the killing fields was real.

I'll admit that's an extreme example and I'm not saying anyone who uses that phrase is as bad as Pol Pot, I'm just saying there's always a chance that the means won't lead to the desired end so the ends justifying the means is gambling with people's lives.

There is of course plenty of subjectivity in such a question, but my simple answer is no. The ends don't justify the means. Always take the right path, not the path of least resistance.