Ethics of Double Wrongs

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-10-25 01:37am

I just had an odd thought regarding the ethics of doing something wrong to correct another wrong.

Say there is, through some magical method, a national vote on whether or not gay marriage should be legally recognized in the U.S. It will be a fully democractic vote (i.e. no electoral college to bungle things), with all people's votes being magically collected via machine into a large central database. The machines themselves are fool-proof.

Now, suppose you could alter the data in the database on a whim. It's highly likely, in this country, that this motion would be defeated, thanks to the good ol' Fundamentalist voting bloc. However, you can change that to prevent the Fundamentalists from getting what they want.

Is doing so ethical, since the vote itself will enact an unethical practice? Or is it unethical to do something subversive to achieve an ethical outcome? Or am I not even using the word 'ethical' correctly?

I'm curious to see what people have to say!

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-10-25 01:40am

In other words are you asking whether the ends justify the means?

It depends on what ends you want via what means you employ.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-10-25 01:44am

Stofsk wrote:In other words are you asking whether the ends justify the means?

I suppose. "The ends justify the means" is typically applied, at least in my experience, to a smaller group gaining at the expense of a larger group (and not necessarily for 'good' reasons). In this case, I'm curious to see if it's acceptable to violate the democratic process in favor of achieving an outcome that promotes human rights.

It depends on what ends you want via what means you employ.

Read the OP.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2005-10-25 01:53am

On the one hand, I'm all for gay rights.

On the other, this seems like an underhanded way of going about it. I'd prefer to just out and out tell the bigots that "hey, the majority isn't always right; in this instance, we're overriding you so that the equal civil rights are expanded." If I could do that, then I would. If I can only do it through vote-changing, though, I'd be far more reluctant to do so. Further, I definitely woudn't make the percentages really wonky (60%,70%,100%), but probably just kick it past the majority mark (51.3%, just to throw a number out there). That way it'd be believable (I think Americans are split roughly in half about gay marriage) and it wouldn't feel quite so underhanded.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-10-25 02:04am

Well, the ends don't always justify the means, because the means necessarily help determine whether or not the ends were worth the effort. However, from an act-based perspective, it's not unethical to do something bad to get something objectively good if and only if there are no other means to do it.

If there were no other realistic or plausible way to achieve humanitarian ends, as you say, then you ought to do it the underhanded way. However, you wouldn't want to apply this as a general rule for every circumstance. It really depends on your goal.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-25 02:17am

Anyone who says the end never justifies the means had best be prepared to explain why he feels that 100% of all military actions in history have been evil.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2005-10-25 09:24am

Darth Wong wrote:Anyone who says the end never justifies the means had best be prepared to explain why he feels that 100% of all military actions in history have been evil.

I never get why people say "Violence never solves anything."

Especially since we still know people who faught and suffered in World War II.

Violence solves a great many problems.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-10-25 09:27am

Xeriar wrote:I never get why people say "Violence never solves anything."

Especially since we still know people who faught and suffered in World War II.

Violence solves a great many problems.

Depends. Violence can fix a bad situation for some people, but it doesn't make the losing party recognize the winning party as 'right,' thereby leaving the root problem unresolved (the 'wrongness' of the loser).

Mobiboros · Post by **Mobiboros** » 2005-10-25 09:41am

I think I almost agree with Akhlut on this one. But I'll take it the step further and say that I don't know if I'd consider it a 'wrong' since if we opened up the vote to mob rule then we've already shot to hell the concept of protected civil rights.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-10-25 02:08pm

Seeing that the laws exist to protect the rights of everyone living in the country, including individuals, it would be more wrong to allow this law to happen and squash out the freedoms of a particular group than to simply let it pass because it's poupular when you're in a position to actually change it.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-10-25 05:46pm

The ends do not always justify the means. The ends also do justify the means on many occassions.

In other words I would happily violate the democratic process to ensure civil rights and equal rights. Ultimately this vote is nothing more then tyrrany by the majority, mob rule. Just because its popular doesn't make it right.