Is "The greater good" ever a good excuse?

It seems it's only used as a reason to do terrible things, at least in fiction. Some examples you might be familiar with are Fallout Three and Harry Potter 7. Do you think it's ever a good reason to do something that normally would be considered very bad?

I believe the means can taint the ends, defeating the accomplishment.

no there's really no excuses... you do what you can and live w/ the consequences.

No it's a good excuse they get to be evila nd say I'm a good guy.

I think a better question is that if it's EVER a good excuse, then is it ALWAYS a good excuse?

there are some things you should never do, regardless of what you might be preventing.SolidSnake35

Such as...?

I guess. My so called "Friend" decided to shoot me in Army of Two "for the Greater Good" :P

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]there are some things you should never do, regardless of what you might be preventing.MrGeezer

Such as...?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]there are some things you should never do, regardless of what you might be preventing.SolidSnake35

Such as...?

How about an example?

Sounds a bit like Utilitarianism, which I'm not really fond of.

That's such a vague statement that it could potentially apply to absolutely anything.MrGeezer

Sounds a bit like Utilitarianism, which I'm not really fond of.

one_plum

if one person dying certainly saves 1 million innocent people. then obviously yes " the greater good" definitely makes sense. trialedbyfire

if one person dying certainly saves 1 million innocent people. then obviously yes " the greater good" definitely makes sense. trialedbyfire

If it was a choice between my girlfriend or one of my close friends and a million strangers, I'd let the million people die... :|

[QUOTE="trialedbyfire"]if one person dying certainly saves 1 million innocent people. then obviously yes " the greater good" definitely makes sense. black_cat19

If it was a choice between my girlfriend or one of my close friends and a million strangers, I'd let the million people die... :|

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]

[QUOTE="trialedbyfire"]if one person dying certainly saves 1 million innocent people. then obviously yes " the greater good" definitely makes sense. LZ71

If it was a choice between my girlfriend or one of my close friends and a million strangers, I'd let the million people die... :|

I know. He's the one who said "obviously", not me. :P

[QUOTE="LZ71"][QUOTE="black_cat19"]

If it was a choice between my girlfriend or one of my close friends and a million strangers, I'd let the million people die... :|

black_cat19

I know. He's the one who said "obviously", not me. :P

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]That's such a vague statement that it could potentially apply to absolutely anything.SolidSnake35

Now, what X actually IS isn't really relevant. All that's relevant is that doing X to man Y is preferable to child Z dying.

You've made a judgement value. You've determined "what is the greater good". And you decide to do X to man Y so that child Z can live.

How does this depend on the details of what X entails? How does this depend on the details of who Man Y is? You're still "going with the greater good", regardless of if you're breaking his leg or slitting his throat.

And if you think that slitting his throat is too extreme of a measure to save a kid, then pretend that Man Y is actually Adolf Hitler Not all lives have equal value to all people. Once we're assigning an arbitrary and subjective value relative to one particular person, then all objectivity flies out the window. Which brings up the question of...how does one actually define "the greater good"?

Which brings up the question of...how does one actually define "the greater good"?

MrGeezer

I've always seen "for the greater good" defined as an action that will save/help the most people, or the people who matter most at the moment. But even that definition is subjective. Who's to say who matters most at the moment, or if saving the most people is really the best choice? Each person at that moment in time could and probably would have a different idea on who "the greater good" actually is, and while many people might not agree, that doesn't necessarily make it not a correct decision.

I don't know the answer really, I was just sort of rambling there. :P

more often than not, I would say it is definately a good excuse.

people just dont like it because its generally attached to an unpleasant choice, i.e. kill 10 to save 1000.

no one wants to kill anyone

but you dont want to let die 1000 people either

whats the logicial choice, though? Kill 10 people.

I think of it this way, if you knew there was a hijacking of an airplane and it was going to crash into a building killing thousands, wouldnt you rather shoot the plane down and save a lot of lives?Chickgsta

yea but most people are too compassionate to do that.

[QUOTE="Chickgsta"]I think of it this way, if you knew there was a hijacking of an airplane and it was going to crash into a building killing thousands, wouldnt you rather shoot the plane down and save a lot of lives?mrbojangles25

yea but most people are too compassionate to do that.

Then again, what is "too compassionate"? This may lead to another philosophical debate... (sorry, gotta go to bed)

[QUOTE="trialedbyfire"]if one person dying certainly saves 1 million innocent people. then obviously yes " the greater good" definitely makes sense. Head_of_games

If the end justifies the means, sure.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Which brings up the question of...how does one actually define "the greater good"?

LZ71

I've always seen "for the greater good" defined as an action that will save/help the most people, or the people who matter most at the moment. But even that definition is subjective. Who's to say who matters most at the moment, or if saving the most people is really the best choice? Each person at that moment in time could and probably would have a different idea on who "the greater good" actually is, and while many people might not agree, that doesn't necessarily make it not a correct decision.

I don't know the answer really, I was just sort of rambling there. :P

When faced with a decision between doing the most good, or something less good, how is this even a question?

And sure, you may be WRONG when you assess which course of action is "the greater good". But really, what else can you do? If you're wrong, then you're wrong.

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"][QUOTE="trialedbyfire"]if one person dying certainly saves 1 million innocent people. then obviously yes " the greater good" definitely makes sense. Dman0017

Did you watch The Dark Knight??? Those people on the boat to have the guts to do what the "great" Ozymandias didnt. Which is one of the many reasons why The Dark Knight was not only better than The Watchmen, but is the greatest superhero movie of all time. It shouldve at least been nominated for the Oscar last year.

/p>

Did you watch The Dark Knight??? Those people on the boat to have the guts to do what the "great" Ozymandias didnt. Which is one of the many reasons why The Dark Knight was not only better than The Watchmen, but is the greatest superhero movie of all time. It shouldve at least been nominated for the Oscar last year.

peaceoutmedusa

Ozymandias? i agree with what he did. if he had not done it, everyone would have died this way they also have a promising future

Dman0017

You entirely missed the part about how Rorschach released his journal, thereby destroying what Ozymandias set out to accomplish.

Ozymandias didn't save the world. If anything, he's made nuclear annihilation even more certain once the Soviets realize that they've been duped.

But even though he was WRONG, he did the best that he could given what he knew. And that's really all that ANYONE can do.

Just do what you believe is right, and let history judge you.

[QUOTE="LZ71"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Which brings up the question of...how does one actually define "the greater good"?

MrGeezer

I've always seen "for the greater good" defined as an action that will save/help the most people, or the people who matter most at the moment. But even that definition is subjective. Who's to say who matters most at the moment, or if saving the most people is really the best choice? Each person at that moment in time could and probably would have a different idea on who "the greater good" actually is, and while many people might not agree, that doesn't necessarily make it not a correct decision.

I don't know the answer really, I was just sort of rambling there. :P

When faced with a decision between doing the most good, or something less good, how is this even a question?

And sure, you may be WRONG when you assess which course of action is "the greater good". But really, what else can you do? If you're wrong, then you're wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly. You just summed up my views on the matter in one neat little post. :P

[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"]/p>

Did you watch The Dark Knight??? Those people on the boat to have the guts to do what the "great" Ozymandias didnt. Which is one of the many reasons why The Dark Knight was not only better than The Watchmen, but is the greatest superhero movie of all time. It shouldve at least been nominated for the Oscar last year.

Dman0017

The Dark Night. The Joker put 2 bombs on two farries, one with "innocent" people on it, and another with prision inmates. He said the first person who presses the button that was in both farries, wont blow up. But if no one presses it by a certain time, then they both blow up. Neither button was pressed, and at the end of the day since they waited, none of them got hurt and Batman found the joker and kicked his butt.

I loved that movie because it took the whole city to save it.

Depends on what position I am in, without a specific context its a hard call.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]If the end justifies the means, sure.peaceoutmedusa

If you're left with a dozen choices, all of them bad (this kind of scenario is ENTIRELY possible in the real world) there ISN'T a "good" course of action. All you can do is choose the course of action which is "least bad" (which is itself the same thing as "most good").

We're not God, and can't always see the outcomes of our actions. But we can sure as hell take the "best" course of action based on the available information. If we're wrong, then we're wrong. But sometimes the alternative is to sit on our asses in fear and doubt, and leave the outcome on "luck".

It depends if you believe in the phrase "the lesser/greater of two evils". As for me, I believe that such ideasare rubbish.

You entirely missed the part about how Rorschach released his journal, thereby destroying what Ozymandias set out to accomplish.

Ozymandias didn't save the world. If anything, he's made nuclear annihilation even more certain once the Soviets realize that they've been duped.

MrGeezer

not true, i simply did not mention it.I was under the impressions we were talking about his (Ozymandias) actions alone. I thought what he was trying to do was good. it does seem likely though that if the Russians did catch wind of Rorshach's journal the world would get destroyed. It is possible though that nobody would believe it.

just saying

[QUOTE="Dman0017"][QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"]/p>

Did you watch The Dark Knight??? Those people on the boat to have the guts to do what the "great" Ozymandias didnt. Which is one of the many reasons why The Dark Knight was not only better than The Watchmen, but is the greatest superhero movie of all time. It shouldve at least been nominated for the Oscar last year.

peaceoutmedusa

The Dark Night. The Joker put 2 bombs on two farries, one with "innocent" people on it, and another with prision inmates. He said the first person who presses the button that was in both farries, wont blow up. But if no one presses it by a certain time, then they both blow up. Neither button was pressed, and at the end of the day since they waited, none of them got hurt and Batman found the joker and kicked his butt.

I loved that movie because it took the whole city to save it.

[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]If the end justifies the means, sure.MrGeezer

If you're left with a dozen choices, all of them bad (this kind of scenario is ENTIRELY possible in the real world) there ISN'T a "good" course of action. All you can do is choose the course of action which is "least bad" (which is itself the same thing as "most good").

We're not God, and can't always see the outcomes of our actions. But we can sure as hell take the "best" course of action based on the available information. If we're wrong, then we're wrong. But sometimes the alternative is to sit on our asses in fear and doubt, and leave the outcome on "luck".

the movie could have been more loyal to the book that aside,care to expand a bit on your point?Dman0017

The Dark Night. The Joker put 2 bombs on two farries, one with "innocent" people on it, and another with prision inmates. He said the first person who presses the button that was in both farries, wont blow up. But if no one presses it by a certain time, then they both blow up. Neither button was pressed, and at the end of the day since they waited, none of them got hurt and Batman found the joker and kicked his butt.

I loved that movie because it took the whole city to save it.