He doesn't think the end justifies the means in any situation

>he doesn't think the end justifies the means in any situation

Go away you filthy Kantian

I mean, the end is all people are going to end up living with. If benefits outweigh the the cost, why not?

Because it outweighs it in every situation.

Then why do you do anything, if the means truly always outweigh the end?

if they don't then nothing does but magic

So obtaining world peace by killing everyone is just fine right?

That's just bad math; doesn't prove anything

>the end justifies the means in every situation

Who are you quoting?

It doesn't. You can't justify say, killing millions of people, inducing environment damage, and destroying countless traditions for whatever goal you have.

Hypothetical situation.

I want chocolate icecream. I proceed to launch nuclear strikes on various countries every 10 minutes until someone brings me chocolate icecream.

Did the end justify the means?

Reverse situation. You want some chocolate ice cream. You go to the store and buy some. Did the end not justify the means?

Did you get your ice cream?

As it turns out, all highly polarized ideologies make next to no sense. Good job recognizing something that people 3,500 years dead figured out.

Yeah, no one thinks that.
Nice anime thread by the way.

>Cred Forums talks philosophy

2 nukes.

It depends on how much you value human life.

Because he's not a retarded teenager going for shock value.

It almost always does.

But Kant didn't think that, did he? In the "drowning child" thought experiment, saving a drowning orphan for any other reason than knowing it's the right thing to do in that situation(e.g., "I'll save her because I just happen to like orphans") is not morally right. That doesn't sound like "ends justify the means" at all.

Not unless you have been as efficient as possible instead of doing whatever is temporarily convenient for you.

Given that we have over 7 billlion of it, I'd say they are fairly expendable.

>sacrifice 200 people making significant change to save the world
>edgelord sees this
>'heh, the end doesn't justify the means'
>undos change I did to reset the world to before I saved it
>200 people still dead but at least the world is chaotic again
>edgelord looks off at the sunset
>now this is freedom

I mean that whole 'who are you quoting?' snark is lame when it's used with reason.
When you use it on someone who actually is quoting someone you just sound retarded.

>wants to start the next stage of evolution, by making everybody a king, and making only the strongest ones survive
>is BTFO'd by the MC and his nakama

fuck man


Shouldn't you use moralfag instead?


You just remind me of the Colombia/FARC peace deal.

>But do the ends justify he memes?

Get gassed shitty frogposter.