[mikema63]

Means are just as important as ends, a good ends is easily corrupted by means.

[Rothbardian]

Means are just as important as ends, a good ends is easily corrupted by means.

"The ends justify the means" is just a nonsense argument people use when they know they're doing or advocating something that is wrong. It's right up there in the circular logic spectrum alongside 'might makes right'.

Either one implies that there's nothing necessarily wrong with:
Murder
Rape
Genocide
Theft
Destruction
Assault
Child abuse

So on and so forth. I'm sorry, but if you have a desired 'ends' and you choose to use any of the above as your 'means', then you're in the wrong. There are, of course, extenuating circumstances and degrees of subjectivity; shades of gray, but 'the ends justifies the means' is not a situational statement, it's an overarching rule. People are so used to having defunct utilitarian ethics forced on them that it's all they know, and they do not understand that utilitarianism is meant to evaluate possible exceptions to the rule, not be the rule itself.

To paraphrase Socrates (maybe Aristotle), if you're taking a moral position which can be used to justify something that is obviously wrong (such as rape), then you've made a mistake somewhere.

[Someone5]

"The ends justify the means" is just a nonsense argument people use when they know they're doing or advocating something that is wrong. It's right up there in the circular logic spectrum alongside 'might makes right'.

"Might makes right" is not a circular argument. Being right does not confer might, thus breaking any cycle you might imagine exists. In the same way, ends do justify means, within bounded limitations. "The ends never justify the means" is as wrong-headed and dogmatic as the original statement. Ends will justify certain means, sometimes morally problematic means.

Either one implies that there's nothing necessarily wrong with:
Murder
Rape
Genocide
Theft
Destruction
Assault
Child abuse

Alright, if by stealing a loaf of bread, you could prevent the destruction of the world, would you agree with the statement "theft is always wrong and must never be practiced." If you were a sane, rational person, then obviously you would recognize that the ends in that case do justify the means. Again, obviously ends justify a bounded set of means, most often in proportion to the severity and accuracy of the projected outcome.

So on and so forth. I'm sorry, but if you have a desired 'ends' and you choose to use any of the above as your 'means', then you're in the wrong.

And anyone who would say that the above can never be justified by the results is an illogical fool who can't handle reality. If an alien species was hell bent on wiping out humanity--you know, maybe they were genetically compelled to kill everything else or something--and our only answer to this was to enact a genocidal war on those aliens, that would be an obviously correct moral stance. When you pose extreme means--like, say, arguing that maybe genocide is the only rational course of action--you are generally having to talk about extreme outcomes--like an alien invasion--so suggesting that there can NEVER be a case where any of the above is justified is essentially nothing but a failure of imagination.

[Rothbardian]

"Might makes right" is not a circular argument. Being right does not confer might, thus breaking any cycle you might imagine exists. In the same way, ends do justify means, within bounded limitations. "The ends never justify the means" is as wrong-headed and dogmatic as the original statement. Ends will justify certain means, sometimes morally problematic means.

If might makes right, then if you are right then you have might.

The ends do not justify the means as a general rule. There are rare exceptions to that rule, which is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism as a principle, the way you've presented it, is just as circular as might makes right.

The fact that you have to 'justify' the means shows that they are wrong right off the bat. Why is it that you don't have to justify charity?

Alright, if by stealing a loaf of bread, you could prevent the destruction of the world, would you agree with the statement "theft is always wrong and must never be practiced." If you were a sane, rational person, then obviously you would recognize that the ends in that case do justify the means. Again, obviously ends justify a bounded set of means, most often in proportion to the severity and accuracy of the projected outcome.

If theft isn't necessarily wrong, why use a scenario like this? How about:

I am walking into my Bently and realize that I haven't been with a woman in months because I'm such a disgusting fat slob, having gorged myself on $1000 dinners for so long. So I knock the next woman I see on the back of my head, throw her in my trunk, and have my way with her at my house.

And let me tell you, the ends justified the means. All night long.

All you're doing is using appeals to emotion while cherry picking the situation by focusing on the benefit and ignoring the cost. If you need to steal bread to save your life, then fair enough. Stealing is still wrong, but I'm not going to tell you that in this case you should hang for it. Unless, of course, you're stealing as a rule. Have you tried to find work? Have you asked for charity? Spoken with family?

Suppose I need that bread too, now what? Who are you to say you need it more than I do? Do you know what I had to do to get this bread? Who are you to take that away from me?

And anyone who would say that the above can never be justified by the results is an illogical fool who can't handle reality. If an alien species was hell bent on wiping out humanity--you know, maybe they were genetically compelled to kill everything else or something--and our only answer to this was to enact a genocidal war on those aliens, that would be an obviously correct moral stance. When you pose extreme means--like, say, arguing that maybe genocide is the only rational course of action--you are generally having to talk about extreme outcomes--like an alien invasion--so suggesting that there can NEVER be a case where any of the above is justified is essentially nothing but a failure of imagination.

It's funny how people drinking the moral relativist koolaid always justify their positions with these almost hilarious, ridiculous scenarios that never happen in real life. That ought to be the first clue that you're wrong, but I doubt you're willing to consider the possibility of being wrong.

[Joe Liberty]

Means are just as important as ends, a good ends is easily corrupted by means.

I would say that good ends more often corrupt the means.

... capitalism itself infringes on human freedom.

Why, because stuff isn't free?