Justification Equals Right?

[Eyeron]

Does any justification through logic and reasoning make any action right? Or is there such a thing as an action can be wrong even though it can be justified?

[Yoink]

If I wish to kill you, it's logical that I should employ a gun (a highly effective killing tool) to do so.

More: if the fact that you are alive inconveniences me, it's logical that I should wish you to be dead, and logical that I should seek to bring that desirable circumstance about.

Being able to provide a rationale for your actions has nothing to do with whether or not they are morally justified.

[theprestige]

Does any justification through logic and reasoning make any action right? Or is there such a thing as an action can be wrong even though it can be justified?
Justified according to what starting assumptions?

All logic can do is provide internal consistency to a rationalization. It can't provide a set of known-good starting assumptions.

[paximperium]

Premise: Jews are not human and a major cause for Germany's ills.
Work it out from there.

[Eyeron]

Enough with the Godwins laws please.

[Yoink]

Enough with the Godwins laws please.

Only one person mentioned the Nazis so far in this thread. And I can't see how it's not a good and relevant example. The means the Nazis used to achieve their ends were highly "rational"--that doesn't mean that the ends themselves were any less profoundly evil.

[Dave Rogers]

Does any justification through logic and reasoning make any action right? Or is there such a thing as an action can be wrong even though it can be justified?

I think you need to define "right", "wrong" and, most importantly, "justification". If you believe "justification" equals "ex post facto rationalisation", then most likely not. If you mean "rigorous demonstration of the morality of an action", then obviously it does (except in that all it does is demonstrate that the action was right all along). At the moment, it's far from clear what your question actually means.

Can you, perhaps, suggest a few examples? You might find that clarifying the question would make the answer immediately obvious.

Dave

[Eyeron]

The war on terrorism is a good example. Suspending rights to make America safe justified by the actions of the people who destroyed WTC. According to the supporters of Former President Bush's policies.

The war on firearms. A few people are killed through accidents so we must get rid of firearms and stop anybody who isn't military or law-enforcement from having them.

The culture war on bad words. Bad words harm children and turns people into raving lunatics so they must not be allowed. Censoring bad words because they harm people is justifiable by the face (as some people believe) they harm children. Same argument for video games.

Ban anything that harms children and protect children from harm. Protecting children from anything that harms them is justification enough. Children can not make the same judgment calls that adults can so they must have special protections that trump the rights of adults.


How are those for examples?

[Yoink]

The war on terrorism is a good example. Suspending rights to make America safe justified by the actions of the people who destroyed WTC. According to the supporters of Former President Bush's policies.

The war on firearms. A few people are killed through accidents so we must get rid of firearms and stop anybody who isn't military or law-enforcement from having them.

The culture war on bad words. Bad words harm children and turns people into raving lunatics so they must not be allowed. Censoring bad words because they harm people is justifiable by the face (as some people believe) they harm children. Same argument for video games.

Ban anything that harms children and protect children from harm. Protecting children from anything that harms them is justification enough. Children can not make the same judgment calls that adults can so they must have special protections that trump the rights of adults.


How are those for examples?

So the question you're trying to ask is "do the ends justify the means"--or, to put it more precisely: "if we agree that the end is good, does that mean that any action which can be logically shown to further than end is also good?"

Well, obviously not. Why? Because we live in a world of conflicting goods. It is good to stop terrorist attacks, but it is also good to respect people's privacy and to refrain from torture etc.. It is good (perhaps) to preserve people from being shocked by "rude words," but it is also good to preserve people's freedom of speech etc. etc. etc.

I don't want to seem rude, but has the question of whether the ends justifies the means genuinely just occurred to you?

[Eyeron]

No, I am not asking about the ends justifying the means. And I have been aware of that statement for many years which is actually a misquote of the original saying, which is "use the best means to achieve the best ends". I am asking whether or not any given action can still be morally right or wrong regardless of the justification for the action.

[Yoink]

No, I am not asking about the ends justifying the means. And I have been aware of that statement for many years which is actually a misquote of the original saying, which is "use the best means to achieve the best ends". I am asking whether or not any given action can still be morally right or wrong regardless of the justification for the action.


There is no "original saying" about the ends and the means--it's an issue that has been debated since time immemorial.

And if that isn't your point, I have no idea what your point is. "Whether or not any given action can still be morally right or wrong regardless of the justification for the action"? What on earth does that mean? I can't see how it relates to any of the examples you gave above.

Are you trying to ask this question, by any chance: "is there any action which you could not justify under any conceivable set of circumstances?" Is that what you're driving at? In other words, are we going for the old "what if you had to kill one person to save 100 people in a runaway tram" routine?

[Simon39759]

I think it is time to mention 'triage'.
Basically, when there is a bad accident, such as a train crash, the first emergency team on site don't administer any help, their goal is to class people into three group:
-Can wait.
-Need emergency care but has a good potential to survive.
-Need emergency care but, even with it, has a low potential to survive.

The idea is that the first persons to be dispatched to the hospital will belong to the second category.
It is a very logical efficient and logical way to organize care to maximize the number of surviving victims. Still, in some case, it means sacrificing the life of people that otherwise could be saved...

[theprestige]

Eyeron, how else do you propose to demonstrate that something is right, except by presenting a rational justification for it?

But like I said earlier, anything can be justified, depending on your starting assumptions.

Justifying--or even correctly identifying--starting assumptions, on the other hand, is something philosophers are still debating.

[Eyeron]

Eyeron, how else do you propose to demonstrate that something is right, except by presenting a rational justification for it?

I'm not entirely sure. Sorry. It just seems to me that sometimes that an action can be justified, but somehow doesn't feel right.

I'll try this with abortion.

The problem with abortion is that you have two negative outcomes. You can either protect the fetus, or allow an abortion. The problem is protecting the fetus trumps the adult woman's rights. But allowing her to have an abortion ends a life. And both are equally abhorrent. At least to me. Outlawing abortion restrict the choice a mother has. But both actions are equally justifiable, because it's right to protect life but it's also right to protect a person's rights.

But please, let's not make this thread about abortion, I'm just trying to use it as an example of what I am trying to say.

[Yoink]

I'm not entirely sure. Sorry. It just seems to me that sometimes that an action can be justified, but somehow doesn't feel right.

I'll try this with abortion.

The problem with abortion is that you have two negative outcomes. You can either protect the fetus, or allow an abortion. The problem is protecting the fetus trumps the adult woman's rights. But allowing her to have an abortion ends a life. And both are equally abhorrent. At least to me. Outlawing abortion restrict the choice a mother has. But both actions are equally justifiable, because it's right to protect life but it's also right to protect a person's rights.

But please, let's not make this thread about abortion, I'm just trying to use it as an example of what I am trying to say.

And what is it that you're trying to say? That there are conflicting goods in the world? I don't think you'll find anyone in this thread who disagrees with that claim.

[Eyeron]

I don't know what I am trying to say anymore because of people overcomplicating things for me in what started out as something simple, I am now very confused, so
I am going to just bow out of this discussion. Sorry to have wasted your time.

[Dave Rogers]

The war on terrorism is a good example. Suspending rights to make America safe justified by the actions of the people who destroyed WTC. According to the supporters of Former President Bush's policies.

OK, well that one isn't a justification after the fact, but rather a response. Whether the response was appropriate is one that there'll never be a consensus on. However, most people recognise that there is at best some level of conflict between liberty and security. Since both are good things to have, there will always be a moral balance to be struck.

The war on firearms. A few people are killed through accidents so we must get rid of firearms and stop anybody who isn't military or law-enforcement from having them.

Security vs. liberty again. I'm not American, so I suspect I would phrase this more as: Some people like to fire guns, so we must allow them to keep their guns no matter how many people get killed as a result. Again, though, there aren't any moral absolutes here.

The culture war on bad words. Bad words harm children and turns people into raving lunatics so they must not be allowed. Censoring bad words because they harm people is justifiable by the face (as some people believe) they harm children. Same argument for video games.

Over-stated, but again there is a genuine attempt being made to balance two negative outcomes, loss of freesom of speech and corruption of the young. There's rather more to swearing than that, though; Steven Pinker has written some interesting comments on the nature of swear words, and their importance to society.

Ban anything that harms children and protect children from harm. Protecting children from anything that harms them is justification enough. Children can not make the same judgment calls that adults can so they must have special protections that trump the rights of adults.

Which is a hard argument to counter. Nobody sane, for example, would let a two-year-old play with a hand grenade, at one extreme. At the other, I don't think giving toy soldiers to a child turns him into a raving militarist. So, again, there's a balance to be made.


How are those for examples?

I think they may not be exactly what you're trying to talk about. I think you're asking, "Is there any action that is good or evil in an absolute sense, so that this cannot be justified by any argument?" I think the answer I would give is that there cannot be any such thing, because no act takes place in a vacuum; so, for example, an act that results in the death of a person could conceivably (though not necessarily) be justified by the fact that it prevents the death of ten.

I suggest you look at articles on the Trolley Problem; the Wikipedia page on the subject is a good place to start. It's a fascinating problem in ethics, and it could give you some highly nutritious food for thought.

Dave