Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

Just conducting a survey to see what y'all think.

There are so many wide ranging situations that this cliche could be a applied to that there is no point in answering the poll. For example, say someone is suspected of kidnapping a child but there is insufficient evidence to search his home. Does the need to rescue the child override a person's presumed innocence and rights against unlawful search and siezure? Many reasonable people would conclude that it does, but actually without any evidence and a search warrant the person's rights outweigh the need to find the child. So in this case even though the ends seem to justify the means they really do not.

CIA/FBI/INTERPOL/WHOEVER?

It really depends on the ends.

"Expediency" is never a good reason to do wrong.

There are times that someone's rights need to be bypassed, I'm sure, as in the situation cited by jimmy above - the kidnapped victim may need help ASAP.

That being said, I find it very difficult to play these ethics games. Too many variables.

No.

LOL Craig thats the shortest post I beleive you have ever posted. But straight to the point.

Yep. And the kidnap victim died, Craig.

Chris4Blues wrote:Just conducting a survey to see what y'all think.

This question I guess will have different answers based on the individual values and situations, the intuitive answer would be “No” indicating the person's morality.

But in a life and death situation often than not morality takes a back seat to survival instinct in which case the answer for most people would be “yes”

philbymon wrote:Yep. And the kidnap victim died, Craig.

How something turns out, is not a moral justification for the process.

Those two things are UNRELATED.

A correct process, is correct no matter how the end turns out.

And the end itself, does not determine whether the process was correct or incorrect.

Your statement also seems to imply, that it is always morally correct to obey laws, when there are sometimes moral reasons to NOT obey laws.

Depends

"Your statement also seems to imply, that it is always morally correct to obey laws, when there are sometimes moral reasons to NOT obey laws."

Let me fix that for ya, Craig. Laws are a general guideline, & there are times when they must be circumvented by a righteous man...& he'd BETTER be right when he does it!

Unless its a member of your family Craig. I think you would have a different view then.
Everything is relative to any juxtaposed problem. Courses and solutions vary greatly depending on the required ending,

A perfect example of this Craig. I was watching a news magazine (show) last night that had a peice about an 18 year old boy that was sexting with his 16 year old girlfreind and had pictures in his camera and the police arrested him and tried him as an adult in posession of child pornoghaphy. Now he has to register as a convicted sex offender untill he is 43. The only problem is he was 17 when he was doing the sexting and had just turned 18 when they arrested him. Its a good thing they didn't have those laws when we were that age because 99% of us would have the same enigma.

It depends on the situation. Often things are not totally black and white. I am not comfortable with a strict stand on anything. Must be the Libra in me, I see both sides of almost any given situation.

#3 greater good FTW!