:celeste_hearts_lesbian::celeste_hearts_trans::celeste_hearts_demisexual: flori_ava_star:~:cursor_blinking: (@star)

flori_ava_star:~

@star@amazonawaws.com

9mo

hot take(??), debating morals and ethics

I am not sure if this is a hot take or not, and I am not willing to die on this hill (so please prove me wrong if you'd like), but naively, I'd say:

If a system of morals and ethics is followed, which prioritizes harm reduction and maximizing happiness et cetera; for any arbitrary matter, dispute or problem, the ends justify the means, if the means inherently have their own "ends" (through consequences and perhaps the butterfly effect), which are also considered by evaluation through the same morals and ethics

am i even coherent

4

0

5

0

Maxx (she/her) @JezebelTheApocryphal@infosec.exchange

9mo

@star so the ends justify the means is moral as long as the means are all moral? doesnt say anything, at least the way im reading it

1

0

flori_ava_star:~

@star@amazonawaws.com

9mo

@JezebelTheApocryphal Well, I think this line of argumentation justifies things like shoplifting from big supermarket chains, compared to one that would say "the means justify the ends"

1

0

Maxx (she/her) @JezebelTheApocryphal@infosec.exchange

9mo

@star theres just not a foundation of an argument here, its a tautology. "if i think what i do is moral, then my actions are justified" is just moral relativism.

and if we focus on the second part of the first post, where you said we must analyze each of the means under the same moral framework as the original ends, then it no longer holds that the "ends justify the means". instead, the chosen moral framework is justifying each action individually, which is often the outcome of this line of thinking in my experience

1

0

flori_ava_star:~

@star@amazonawaws.com

9mo

@JezebelTheApocryphal What you're saying makes a lot of sense