Zeraph

For instance, police constantly giving drug dealers, fencers and the like a free pass if they rat out someone higher up the food chain (a bigger criminal). In other words, for them law is subjective, and the ends justify the means. I don't know if its right or wrong, just if we should apply the same to our daily lives.

Well all the philosophy I've read has almost always made the case for the means never justifies the ends.

What does that say about the law? How much should one support certain laws? Should we all make up our mind? In a way that might be complete anarchy. So its like there is no answer.

For example though, personally in the shoplifting thread, I say let the shoplifters get away with it if its from one of the creepy corporations like walmart or target. Other giant corporations I think its ok to steal from would include those that outsource jobs. Basically because they are already stealing from the people by not having to pay the same taxes, not having to pay our countries people for a job, etc. So if corporations steal, and the law justifies the means, why shouldn't we as individuals?

In other words, that almost makes a argument for shoplifting being legal for big corporations.

There's got to be some way we can decide as a citizen and make a bit of a difference.

So do the ends justify the means? The cops certainly think so. Which speaks poorly of them IMO.

Nepenthes

Shoplifting is illegal. It is not illegal for an American corporation to outsource jobs. If you want to stop corporations from outsourcing, you can arrange a boycott or elect lawmakers that believe as you do. You can support companies and corporations that do not outsource jobs.

It is too big a leap for me to accept that you justify stealing in this way.

I find the topic of the police breaking the law (giving a free pass to an informant (i.e. rat) to enforce the law a better ethical challenge.

Zeraph

I never said I stole. Just that I wouldn't stop someone.

This goes back to the old philosophical stealing debate. Well would you steal a loaf of bread for your starving family? How do you know those shoplifters aren't poor as dirt?

And how are you missing the disconnect that police break their own laws?

Nepenthes

I was responding to the part where you think it is OK to steal from some corporations and not others.


If I agree that the police break the law to enforce the law, where is my disconnect in your view?

ASU2003

Reduced sentences for cooperating with police is one thing, immunity is another.

bagatelle

This is very interesting topic and has many aspects to it.

As a basic rule about corporations: small or big, it is their possession, you don't steal from them. You don't either take stuff from anyone else, who has ownership to the goods.

It's hard to say though, how much personal poverty would affect on my views. I don't think I've ever stolen anything but some apples from trees - and this was done for the thrill of it, not that I needed to steal the apples, we had our own tree and we weren't starving. Stealing apples may be a bit relative, if the owner does not even care to collect or use them and the apples would go wasted. Yet it is their tree.

Some people exploit their employers - it might get tempting to take a little here and there and save a big penny yourself on things you need at home: from toilet paper to coffee packages, cleaning equipment or spare parts, the company has in store for later use. In the end all these extra costs are paid by the employees, especially when the company is not doing so well, every little counts.

There is also the seemingly unclear gray area, if you happen to own an expense account, how much is approriate to use.

Speaking of police catching really big criminals or preventing crimes, I think there is reason to consider lesser punishment for someone, who assists but uses illegal ways.

__________________

Zeraph

Yet they do both. Our laws have become flexible, bendable, exploitable. I believe in hard coded principles. So for me, the law is not "right."

Not saying I have a better idea. Just challenging the thought that most people have that the law is always right.

Even though its "innocent until proven guilty" I have seen both cops and people ignore that and abuse the alleged criminal.

Basically, if cops don't follow their own rules (and oh man I have seen so many speeding without there lights on for instance) why should we follow every letter of the law?

Nepenthes

Would you prefer to live in a place without laws and those who enforce them? I certainly do not agree with all laws, but I intend to obey the majority of all laws based on my own self-interest, if for no other reason. I will selectively break the law when it comes to speeding in certain situations.

Law enforcement does occasionally need to break laws in order to enforce them. I am in support of this for now as I do not think that law enforcement in general would be better off without this privilege.

The police is made up of all types of people; some will be honorable and others will not be.

Zeraph

I'm just asking questions. Not offering solutions.

jewels

If you really believe this to be the case, how do you rationalize that? If our President or one's parents or management of a corporation expect their people, children and employees to act in a certain way, aren't they to set the bar for behavior, as opposed to a declaration of "Do as I say, not as I do?"

I don't care for the acceptance of law enforcement breaking laws. This gives said officers the opportunity to play judge and jury. Too many innocents are being falsely convicted. That's unacceptable in my book and not the price we should have to pay for democracy and our wonderful system of justice.

Maybe if cops were held to a higher standard, people would have more respect for the law. Just sayin'.

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

roachboy

usually people evaluate this sort of question by importing another frame of reference often without saying that they're doing it.

a utilitarian frame treats "the greatest good for the greatest number" as the best you can do. so the question then would be whether that objective is approached if cops can in certain situations be outside of the law that they enforce or not. the opposing position would probably say that the damage caused the system by these actions at the level of legitimacy (say) outweighs the benefits (less crime) because, for example, these actions undermine the notion of rule of law. the counter would be that the ultimate good is a reduction of crime or harm to others and that results in this area would mitigate damage in the other.

if you're in a relatively interesting debate, the question of differing definitions of the good may come up. the trick with utilitarian arguments is that they're not interesting that way necessarily.

a deontological type position would say there's no justification for violating the rule of law once you have the rule of law.

like that.

sometimes it helps to name the position you're working from.
sometimes it doesn't.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Nepenthes

I do really believe this to be the case. I rationalize it as a necessary thing to do in some cases as a law enforcement tool. The best example I can think of is a police sting operation. This a legal technique that the police use to enforce certain laws. It is a practical solution.

Another example is an armed bank robbery. If the bank robbers have guns are are shooting at the police, should the police not be allowed to shoot back?
If the bank robbers speed away in the get-away car, should the police maintinan the legal speed limit while chasing them? It comes down to what is practical.

jewels

Since they're trained in pursuit driving, I thought it was a given that we exclude what an officer is allowed or required to do in order to function on the job. That would include speeding and defending lives by any means necessary.

I'm referring to the moment that privilege is abused. Police sting, sure. But entrapment or evidence planting? This is the OP question. Law enforcement may feel confident they have the criminal, but would these actions cross the line and be justified? Or shouldn't that be left to our judicial system?

I don't believe, in these cases, the end justifies the means. Breaking the law is not an option for a police officer. I'm not thrilled with the concept of collateral damage although I can accept it to a very limited and fucked up extent. Sometimes the cost is just way too high and negates the idea that any progress has been made. If one has to take three steps back to move one forward, he's still moving backwards.

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

kriswest

Cops are human and screw up. the question of ends justifying the means is not for all occasions. Giving immunity to a petty crime in order to capture a worse criminal is justified. Entrapment can be justified. Each case must stand on its own to certain extents

Ourcrazymodern?

Since our laws are the means to an end, they're justified if good.
The problem lies in definition. What's good for me might piss you off. The drug dealer & the cop might actually be on the same page, in a high-speed chase across a town containing "innocent" "civilians".
The theft of our oneness isn't justified by the concept. The means to our end seems to me confused in its exercise of control, but I'm content that we're doing the best that we can as a group.
...I forgot what I was thinking. This illustrates to me the utility of trying to focus in an unflattering manner, but! Without trying to answer impossible questions, we're quite surely fucked.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

drj

The OP metioned that he had never seen philosophy that argued for "the ends justify the means". Well, if you want to look at such philosophy, take a look at Consequentialism.

I have strong consequentialist leanings. I generally think the ends do justify the means. The consequences (ends) of an action (means) are what matters. If an action has good consequences, the act is a good one. If it has bad consequences, it is a bad one.

I think most people are this way in practice, though if you were to ask most people if they believed "the ends justify the means", they would reject the principle as abhorrent (while still merrily going about their lives as if it were true). A funny thing happens when you actually ask people why they think consequences do not justify actions. They almost always end up describing some undesirable consequences of the action that they just failed to consider as a part of their initial judgement.

bagatelle

^^ Sounds true. We accept war, killing of others, to get to a better ending for a nation.

What we don't approve, is others getting away with methods, we are taught not to use.

__________________

Zeraph

bag- a good point. Individuals are all the ends don't justify the means. But anything bigger, corporations, law enforcement, countries, states, etc. the ends DO justify the means.

drj- I'm not sure you entirely realize what its meant when the ends justify the means. For instance, stem cell research. At an extreme end we could purposefully end pregnancies on 40% of the population or on anyone who has more the one kid. Most people wouldn't agree there that the ends justify the means (even though the end is huge medical discoveries). But its just because its babies. And they're cute. Its like if we have hatred or indifference then the ends DO justify the means, but if its something cute we have to stomp on the they don't. Its very biased.

drj

No, I do - let me clarify.

If you asked most people why it would be bad to intentionally end nearly half of all pregnancies in order to harvest embryonic stem cells, most would probably rattle off the many potentially horrible consequences (i.e. "the ends") that would be actualized with such a policy, as the reasons why the "ends don't justify the means" in this case. But in so doing, they simply act like consequentalists without realizing it.

All ends of an action must be considered in order to judge whether means are justified, not just the particular one we might be aiming for or thinking of at the moment.

If we went with your scenario, the other unconsidered ends would be potentially disastrous. At the very least, individual liberties and personal autonomy would have to be demolished in order to carry out your hypothetical plan. The potential gains from all the extra research would have to be considered next to losses from a diminished value for personal liberty. Most wouldn't think it worth it. But either way, we're all still deciding this by the principle of "the ends justify the means".

Zeraph

OK, so basically you do believe the ends justify the means?

I personally disagree. Say there's a bad guy, the cop plants a weapon and drugs on him and kills him (not in that order heh). One less badguy but it doesn't justify it. We aren't all knowing beings that can know the outcome of ends. And that is the fatal flaw. What if it turned out that guy the theoretical cop shot was a twin brother who was totally legit and legal and was waiting for his brother to come home to get him to do the right thing?

That's the problem with the ends justify the means. We can't see ahead while we're doing it.

bagatelle

There was some woman blogging about relationship advice for men. Her views where, that whatever decisions the men had done, they were always the right decisions, and they should carry on from that point.

This kind of thinking might help a person deal with en ending relationship and move on. Yet I don't see how well this applies to a situation, where someone dies.

Thinking afterwards it's an obvious conclusion, that the way things happened brought us to this exact point of events, made us what we are. We can't go back to change, what has already happened, so we can only accept what has happened.

We can still judge the means afterwards, no matter what the outcome was. It's a moral question. We have set the values for wrong and right - the rules - before the actions are taken. Someone breaks these tules: the outcome has to be something that is benifit to many people, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about 'end justifying the means'.

A cop can kill an armed person, when there is an imminent threat of that person killing or damaging other people. We allow permission to killing depending on the circumstances. We have agreed on this "exception" to the rules in advance. Killing someone in selfdefence is an acceptable exception to the rules.

Zeraph - in the example, you ar describing, the actions are wrong, the outcome is wrong, it's framing. So what if a cop kills a person, who is considered a bad guy, but the evidence on him was planted, and as a result you incite a gang war, and more damage is done.

__________________

levite

The thing is, it's awfully hard to generalize. My feeling is that quite often, if not even most of the time, the end does not justify the means. But occasionally it can happen.

Part of the ultimate problem with law is that it must be general; and yet generalities cannot fit every circumstance, or even fit most circumstances with equal success. We can attempt to ameliorate this by instituting legislative and executive checks and balances, multiple reviews of legislation and ideas for legislation, or even creating legislative initiatives wherein the people may directly vote for laws, or to nullify laws.

But ultimately, the way that we are supposed to ameliorate this is to have fair and unbiased judges with broad and strong powers of interpretation of the law and authority in sentencing. Which, as of this moment in American history, we are miserably, suckingly failing at. And we are also supposed to create a fair and equitable society, where the laws are structured in such a way as to support the average person, and not to screw them in favor of huge multinational conglomerates that, for idiotic reasons, we have decided to legally call "people" and invest with individual rights, despite the fact that they are corrupting every branch of government in our nation. Which, perhaps needless to say, we are also failing at.

In theory, we should be able to make general laws that are flexibly interpreted by fair judges in the context of a fair society in such a way that justice is served, whether in the case at hand the end justified the means, the means justified the end, or justification of one by the other was never at issue. Whether that will happen any time soon...? Another story.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Zeraph

It'll happen about as soon as there is one united country across the entire world, there is one common language (with each having a secondary), with no one going hungry, with every single person that wants a job has one, when transportation is universal, and healthcare is universal. Sooooo we'll see it maybe in a 100 or 200 years from now.

levite

You, sir, are far more of an optimist than I. I would've said 500 or 1000 years from now, minimum.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Zeraph

Its not really optimism. I used to think that. But I've been watching world events unfold. We will either fail and fall face first and all slip back, like a Dark Age II, OR we'll get our shit together. Its pass/fail. And a timed test.

But if you did say run the scenario a billion times, then the average time would probably be somewhere between what you said, 500-1000 years because we'd fail more often than not.

Here's hoping we beat the odds.