Editing TheStarsAreRight:Consequentialism1

[http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/TheStarsAreRight:RedlandJack '''Return to Redland Jack's page''']

In criticizing Pentheus, some members of my team have accused them of thinking that 'the end justifies the means', as though this is proof that they are evil. On the face of it, this strikes me as exactly wrong. However, it is worth spending a moment to ascertain the reasonable objections to allowing an end to justify means: <br><br>
1) Suppose your young son is about to touch a burning hot stove. You dash over and slap him on the hand, causing him to cry. Was you bad means (hitting your child) justified by the good end (saving him from badly burning his hand)? Maybe. For instance, if the next time the stove is on and you're not around, he grabs the stove and burns his hand (thus learning never to touch an active stove again), your action was not justified. You added the minor hurt of a struck hand to the major hurt of a burned hand. <br> 
Thus, one objection to the end justifying the means, is that it is very possible that the bad means employed do not, in fact, achieve the end sought. <br><br>
2) Suppose the same scenario as in (1), but this time your hand slap was successful and your son never attempts to touch an active stove again. Was you bad means justified in this instance? Maybe. You might have been able to achieve the same result by pulling your son away from the stove and informing him that he was about to badly burn his hand. If this would have been sufficient for him to never touch an active stove again, your action was not justified.<br>
Thus, a second objection, is that if a less evil means was available to achieve the same good end, the end did not justify the evil means.<br><br>
3) Finally, suppose that in the scenario above that you dashed over and chopped off one of your son's hand. Assume your son is not terribly bright and this was the minimum means necessary to stop him from touching active stoves. Is your bad means justified? Well, obviously not. <br>
Thus, a third objections, is that if the harm from the means outweigh the benefits of the end, the means are not justified. <br>
There are some other variations of these objections (such as, the same or similar means achieving two different ends with differing utility), but these are probably the most important. <br><br>
Is then, Pentheus justified in what they are doing? Maybe. <br>
They most likely satisfy objection 1. That is, from our looks into the future, it seems likely that the bad means they employ will result in the good end. <br>
With near certainty, they satisfy objection 3. 25% of the people in the world dying is better than all of the people in the world dying.
Objection 2 is the most likely sticking point. I would say that, for now, they satisfy it. To date, no other plan I have heard can achieve the good end with less evil means. <br>
Until someone can prove to my satisfaction that one of these three objections holds, I will almost certainly continue to support Pentheus.