Thread: Is it moral to commit an immoral act for a moral purpose?

This seems to be at the core of parts of several other threads, and there are also many real life scenarios where such a question applies.

It could go horribly wrong, but here a few random thoughts on hypothetical scenarios that do occur in life, to get started. Also, though linking to recent threads, for the OP they are unrelated, used purely for illustration, and lead to more complex issues.

Please consider each question, and then answer it before reading on, whilst keeping in mind that the ultimate human right is the right to life.


If the responsibility fell upon you...

1...could you under any circumstances wilfully and knowingly or by consent harm or otherwise significantly breach the human, civil or any other rights of a person who is 'probably guilty but not proven guilty', in order to protect the rights of innocent people?


2...can you imagine any scenario that would have you actively and to extremes infringe the rights of say, two, ten or a hundred people, only one of whom you know is complicit if not proveably guilty to the rigours of a court of law, and is at least able to provide you with information or the means with which to prevent the breach of rights of innocent others, or to bring other guilty parties to justice?


3...and you hold under your control somebody whom you have reason to believe is guilty but who hasn't actually been convicted in a court of anything at all; would you agree to actively disregard this person's entire library of rights, to torture and go beyond torture if necessary, if you have reason to believe that by doing so you might save the life of one, or ten, or a thousand innocent people?


4...if your answer to #3 was a definitive no, fair enough, make that five, ten, or fifty thousand innocent people. At which point did you change your mind, if at all, and why?

after last week's vote, bush now has the power to solely determine who is an enemy of the state and detain that person FOREVER ....and there is no tribunal or forum to question or protest the detention.

he alone also determines what constitutes torture.

no matter if you think these powers are legal or moral, they certainly are powerful. and this administration has not given any indication that they should be trusted with such power.

In that case there's a democratic mechanism installed to rid us of these evil people whom we, the people, voted into power in the first place.

Perhaps you might care to advise certain other nations that free people can vote their leaders out.

The problem with 'democratic' mechanisms is that you simply don't throw all the bastards out with the bath water. Sure, we can get rid of the President and vote in one from another party...but getting rid of 435 incumbent Congressmen or 100 incumbent Senators is a bit of a challenge.

In fact, true democracy doesn't exist in any nation that I know of. The purpose of a representative republic is to make it difficult to enact immediate change via election. Even the election of another President won't likely result in a complete 180 degree turn of events because that would require a sizeable change in the composition of the legislature. The fundamental flaw in American democracy is that it's extremely difficult to vote them all out at the same time.

However, I feel the biggest threat to democracy as we know it isn't another GWB getting elected but a generally incompetent electorate who either vote because someone has an R or a D by their name, or, because someone happens to make better commercials. Add to that the lack of any decent candidates and you have a recipe for the mess we have now.

Is a parliamentary system any better? Probably not.

When America turns out a Gore and a Bush as the 'best' choices it's no wonder we are where we are today.

One problem is the private sector pays so much better, why would anyone of any value run for office?

Originally Posted by surasak

The problem with 'democratic' mechanisms is that you simply don't throw all the bastards out with the bath water. Sure, we can get rid of the President and vote in one from another party...but getting rid of 435 incumbent Congressmen or 100 incumbent Senators is a bit of a challenge.

Politicians that are democratically elected can be democratically deselected if enough people decide, for whatever reason, that somebody else should take over.

In fact, true democracy doesn't exist in any nation that I know of. The purpose of a representative republic is to make it difficult to enact immediate change via election. Even the election of another President won't likely result in a complete 180 degree turn of events because that would require a sizeable change in the composition of the legislature. The fundamental flaw in American democracy is that it's extremely difficult to vote them all out at the same time.

True democracy? We have what we have and most agree it's the most practical form of government, warts and all; consider also that its critics are free to speak their mind, and importantly, vote for change.

No form of government wil please all of the people all of the time, and none will be perfect except in the mind of the idealogue.

However, I feel the biggest threat to democracy as we know it isn't another GWB getting elected but a generally incompetent electorate who either vote because someone has an R or a D by their name, or, because someone happens to make better commercials. Add to that the lack of any decent candidates and you have a recipe for the mess we have now.

Me too; was it Churchill who said the best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter?

As to the quality of candidates, that too is subjective. The best of two evils is still evil, but one has to enter the trophy room, despite whatever you or I may prefer, and that is the one who persuaded the electorate that he is their best choice.

So, you seem to be fairly criticising the intelligence of voters, and also what's in the fishbowl, both are legitimate gripes, though that's the way it is in lieu of a sound and practical alternative.

Is a parliamentary system any better? Probably not.

When America turns out a Gore and a Bush as the 'best' choices it's no wonder we are where we are today.

I recall thinking at the time that if these were the two best candidates from a population of 275 million, then not only the US but the West is doomed. Bottom line has democracy, with all of its imperfections, as the most preferred form of government.

Originally Posted by Bobk_nyc

One problem is the private sector pays so much better, why would anyone of any value run for office?

Power, immortality...add as you wish.

A quote I have good reason never to forget: Vanity of vanities, all is in vain, generations come and generations go, but the earth will remain forever.

Originally Posted by Bobk_nyc

why would anyone of any value run for office

Corruption for those who couldn't make it in the private sector ?

Back to the OP,

Of course we could. "There is a murderer that lives in every one of us".

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by surasak

The problem with 'democratic' mechanisms is that you simply don't throw all the bastards out with the bath water. Sure, we can get rid of the President and vote in one from another party...but getting rid of 435 incumbent Congressmen or 100 incumbent Senators is a bit of a challenge.

Politicians that are democratically elected can be democratically deselected if enough people decide, for whatever reason, that somebody else should take over.

Inherently though it doesn't work that way because each state selects its representatives. Even if the national moods tends to be sour on one party in general it doesn't always translate that way to the state level mainly due to everyone thinking 'our Senator/Representative is doing a good job. It's those other bastards who suck.'

Given how sour the mood is over the GOP it's highly unlikely the Democrats can do much better than 'possibly' take control of Congress (with the slimmest of margins expected).

In a real democracy we wouldn't have a state by state division insulating the government from extreme change.

As a nation we only select the President and Vice President, and, even then it's not a direct election. In the past those who have gained the majority of the popular vote failed to win election due to the Electoral College, once again, insulating the government from the true 'will' of the people.

The system of government we have, from top to bottom, is designed to thwart change. From national elections to the criteria to amend the Constitution real change is difficult to achieve without overwhelming consensus.

Maybe a twist on the OP would be: would you kill someone to preserve your own life? Would you kill someone to preserve someone else's life?

If someone threatens me in an intense way they may or may not kill me. If I kill that person my life will be spared but there's no way of knowing if the other person would have really succeeded. Thus, we have a situation where preserving life becomes paramount regardless of the other's intentions or guilt.

If the shoe is on the other foot and torturing someone/killing them to save others 'might' protect others' lives then it's a crap shoot. Too complicated to answer without some details. I don't know how I would answer it.

This was one of the 'complex issues' referred to in the OP.

Interesting topic, though I find it difficult to imagin scenarios in which I would be involved personally. It's about authorities dealing with terrorist suspects, isn't it, keda?

I'd need a more tangible scenario to comment what I'd agree to or not, but I doubt the answers would differ from the abstract level.

Hmmm, mostly, yes, but we're talking hypothetical situs that can and do occur in real life, and when they do it often results in no clean or clinical outcome.

For example, and it does need to be your (the reader's) child that is kidnapped; suspect appears, claims his accomplice will do away with said child if his (unreasonable, uncompliable) demands are not met - time is of the essence - should he be tortured, and to what extreme, to extract the relevant info? Note I do not have the figures so this may be wrong, but I believe most kidnap for ransom victims are actually murdered whether or not the ransom is paid, because it is easier to control a dead body, and or a dead person cannot testify.

I had torture on my mind when starting this thread, and though the immoral act for a moral purpose argument sometimes gets heated, mostly it looks at real life scenarios that get rather complex once what many regard as irrevocable ethics and morals are tossed into the equation. The premise of course, is that few things are clear cut black or white.

Well, in your scenario, the guy probably knows where the child is, but torture - hmm, maybe I would knock him about a bit. I'd probably lock him up in a room and release him in exchange for my daughter, after alerting the authorities, who have people trained to deal with this stuff.

I just don't think you can translate an emotional, personal response to what a state's policies should be.

I just don't think you can translate an emotional, personal response to what a state's policies should be.

Best summary ever.