An "End vs Means" Question

[Maleficent13]

Do you believe that there is ever a scenario where it would be acceptable to threaten or endanger the wellbeing of an innocent person in order to change the behavior of someone close to them?

For example: In family A, Dad is doing something that you are vehemently against. What he is doing is legal, but morally questionable in your view. In order to get him to cease doing said action, is it okay to threaten harm to any member of his family if he should choose to continue?

*I am purposefully not using a specific example, because I don't want this to turn into a debate about the example, but rather the action.*

In other words, is there any end which would justify the above means?

 

[Serena]

I vote no.

You can tell him how you feel, but what he does is up to him. Threatening someone else isn't morally right either.

 

[golfgal]

The problem with moral issues is that they aren't the same for everyone. I know a few people that say wearing tampons is morally wrong for teen girls because it takes away their virginity. Stupid, but just because I know that is wrong doesn't mean I can impose my belief on someone else. Also, hypothetical questions without specific details are impossible to answer because the details make all the difference in how I would respond.

 

[MushyMushy]

Maybe. Although I'm having a hard time thinking of something that a person could do that's legal that would justify it, but I still say maybe.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

I am so lost here. I don't know if this is a 'Stop drinking or the puppy gets it between the eyes' question or something else. My mind wanders...

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Mal, this one is difficult without a more specific example. By harm...do you mean like threatening that one will contact family and child services? Or by threatening do you mean one will PHYSICALLY harm a family member.

 

[Maleficent13]

Also, hypothetical questions without specific details are impossible to answer because the details make all the difference in how I would respond.

That's pretty much my point though. If there are any details which would make a person answer, "Yes, in that scenario it's okay", then your answer is yes, period. You think there ARE ends which would justify the OP's means.

I will offer a few examples:

Dad is a(n):

Abortion doctor
Scientist who works on animals
Stem cell researcher
Furrier

 

[golfgal]

That's pretty much my point though. If there are any details which would make a person answer, "Yes, in that scenario it's okay", then your answer is yes, period. You think there ARE ends which would justify the OP's means.

I will offer a few examples:

Dad is a(n):

Abortion doctor
Scientist who works on animals
Stem cell researcher
Furrier

So, you are saying that you have a friend with a career like above that you don't like and you want to threaten a family member with harm if they don't quit their job???? No, that is NOT acceptable. With your given examples, abortion is legal, right or wrong, not everyone believes the same thing about abortion. A scientist that works on animals, a LOT of people would be DEAD without that research, sorry, can't support you on that one. The stem-cell researcher, there are a lot of places to get stem-cells other then aborted fetus'. I am very supportive of scientific research for medical issues. Furrier, again, not everyone believes that wearing a fur is wrong. Personally, I have no feelings one way or another about wearing furs other then I think they are ugly and I wouldn't want one.

What makes what you are doing, threatening a family member, better then what they are doing in your mind?

 

[mickeyfan2]

IMHO No

 

[mickeyfan2]

The problem with moral issues is that they aren't the same for everyone. I know a few people that say wearing tampons is morally wrong for teen girls because it takes away their virginity. Stupid, but just because I know that is wrong doesn't mean I can impose my belief on someone else. Also, hypothetical questions without specific details are impossible to answer because the details make all the difference in how I would respond.

I never realized that I lost my virginity to a tampon.

 

[Race the Reaper]

So, you are saying that you have a friend with a career like above that you don't like and you want to threaten a family member with harm if they don't quit their job???? No, that is NOT acceptable. With your given examples, abortion is legal, right or wrong, not everyone believes the same thing about abortion. A scientist that works on animals, a LOT of people would be DEAD without that research, sorry, can't support you on that one. The stem-cell researcher, there are a lot of places to get stem-cells other then aborted fetus'. I am very supportive of scientific research for medical issues. Furrier, again, not everyone believes that wearing a fur is wrong. Personally, I have no feelings one way or another about wearing furs other then I think they are ugly and I wouldn't want one.

What makes what you are doing, threatening a family member, better then what they are doing in your mind?

Well said!

 

[Race the Reaper]

I never realized that I lost my virginity to a tampon.

Oh dear. I told someone else he was my first.

 

[golfgal]

I never realized that I lost my virginity to a tampon.

Trust me I KNOW people that think that. One mom won't let her 9th grader wear them for this reason. She wants to be on the swim team but can't because she can' miss a week of practice once/month. Dumb! She is the type of mom that believes everything she reads like underwire bras cause breast cancer, etc.

 

[Tigger&Belle]

I cannot imagine a situation where it would be ok to do what you are saying. Ever.

Your example did nothing to change my view, even though I am against abortion and I am against furs. I think that the best way to eliminatate abortions is with the education of the alternatives to abortion--birth control, for example. Never threatening the doctors who do them. As far as furs--I won't buy them, but I would never harm someone who raises the animals, sells the furs, or buys the furs.

And as to the tampon, I asked the tampon if it was as good for it as it was for me and can you believe it didn't answer?

 

[Maleficent13]

So, you are saying that you have a friend with a career like above that you don't like and you want to threaten a family member with harm if they don't quit their job???? No, that is NOT acceptable. With your given examples, abortion is legal, right or wrong, not everyone believes the same thing about abortion. A scientist that works on animals, a LOT of people would be DEAD without that research, sorry, can't support you on that one. The stem-cell researcher, there are a lot of places to get stem-cells other then aborted fetus'. I am very supportive of scientific research for medical issues. Furrier, again, not everyone believes that wearing a fur is wrong. Personally, I have no feelings one way or another about wearing furs other then I think they are ugly and I wouldn't want one.

What makes what you are doing, threatening a family member, better then what they are doing in your mind?

Whoa there. This is not me. This is inspired by a story I heard on the radio this morning about people who decided that targeting corporations wasn't working to end what they consider to be gross moral wrongs, so they started targeting the individuals who work at those corporations, going so far as to leave homemade bombs on the individuals' doorsteps for anyone in the family (including children) to find and be harmed by.

Your last question was the one I was really looking for an answer for. How is shooting an abortion doc better than what the abortion doc is doing? How is blowing up a scientist or his family better than the experiements he's doing on animals? Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who think it IS better.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Okay with the added information, I say no, the end does not justify the mean.

 

[golfgal]

Whoa there. This is not me. This is inspired by a story I heard on the radio this morning about people who decided that targeting corporations wasn't working to end what they consider to be gross moral wrongs, so they started targeting the individuals who work at those corporations, going so far as to leave homemade bombs on the individuals' doorsteps for anyone in the family (including children) to find and be harmed by.

Your last question was the one I was really looking for an answer for. How is shooting an abortion doc better than what the abortion doc is doing? How is blowing up a scientist or his family better than the experiements he's doing on animals? Obviously, there are a lot of people out there who think it IS better.

You have to wonder where their though processes are, you can't do abortions because we don't like it so we are going to kill your 4 year old daughter?????

 

[PRINCESS VIJA]

NO, threatening an innocent person is never the way to go. You would need to address it with the offending individual. Why should an innocent person suffer from someone elses actions?

This brings to mind a horrible story I read that happened in the middle east. I don't remember the exact country. A young man had an affair with a married woman. The judges ruling on this? That the sister of the young man was to be raped by 2 men. HUH??? An innocent person totally suffers but the offending person is off the hook. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

 

[Beth76]

Even if the action was illegal, it's still not ok to hurt or threaten to hurt
someone.

This brings to mind a horrible story I read that happened in the middle east. I don't remember the exact country. A young man had an affair with a married woman. The judges ruling on this? That the sister of the young man was to be raped by 2 men. HUH??? An innocent person totally suffers but the offending person is off the hook. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

So, in this country, adultery is illegal, but rape isn't? Nice.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Do you believe that there is ever a scenario where it would be acceptable to threaten or endanger the wellbeing of an innocent person in order to change the behavior of someone close to them?


In other words, is there any end which would justify the above means?

Absolutely not. Threatening the well being of an innocent to get your desires met (even if they are good) is still morally wrong.

Innocent to me would mean that the person HAS NO IDEA what is going one.

Your definition of an "innocent" would have to meet that criteria.

If the "innocent person" is aware of "issues" regarding the behavior of the other person then they are no longer innocent and your example is incorrect.