"The End Justifies the Means"

[s09119]

The most-prominent theme in "Justice" was perhaps the question of "Does the end justify the means?" Rush argued in Young's defense that Sgt. Spencer was an undermining force on Destiny, and that his death greatly improved their ability to survive. Thus, were Young the one responsible, the killing can be viewed in a less-monstrous way, as this far out in the galaxy, the crew must do whatever it has to in order to keep going at full efficiency.

Later on, Rush used the same defense for his own actions, arguing that removing Young from command of the ship was a necessary step to ensure the full potential of Destiny was realized. Framing the Colonel for murder was ultimately for the "greater good," as Young (in Rush's mind) is not a leader well-suited to this kind of mission, where the hard choices must be made without hesitation. In retaliation, Young essentially applies the same argument to Rush's life, stranding him on an alien world for the "greater good."

So what do you all think; does the end justify the means in a situation like this? Had Spencer's death been a murder, would it have been justified? Was attempting to oust Young from command, given his leadership style, within limits for the greater good? Did Young's decision to maroon Rush to preserve cohesion on the ship step out of line?

[ross613]

The most-prominent theme in "Justice" was perhaps the question of "Does the end justify the means?" Rush argued in Young's defense that Sgt. Spencer was an undermining force on Destiny, and that his death greatly improved their ability to survive. Thus, were Young the one responsible, the killing can be viewed in a less-monstrous way, as this far out in the galaxy, the crew must do whatever it has to in order to keep going at full efficiency.

Students of 19th-centry Liberal philosophy might be familiar with something called the "Theory of Utility" or "Utilitarianism"; which is largely a product of the writings of a fellow named John Stuart Mill. Nobody really calls themself a Utilitarian anymore - because other theories on morality (both derivative and otherwise) have really matured the conversation on ethics, particularly in the field of medicine since the core idea of Utility Theory; that good = pleasure (in any forms) and that evil = pain was particularly difficult to provide meaningful quantitative input to a number of moral questions. Among these were (loosely characterized): can the ends justify the means.

I find myself a propoent of Utility Theory, despite its deficiencies, because I also fall into a camp that believes there are absolute moral truths which exist and that, basically, the pleasure/pain principle has merit even if it's difficult to routinely plug in moral problems into a moral calculator and arrive at the answer. Critics of Mill and other Utilitarians raised the issue of a town sherrif being confronted with an angry mob threatening immeasurable harms to many if a prisoner awaiting trial for a grusome crime weren't handed over. In the scenario, the Utilitarian sherriff ends up handing the prisoner over without much consideration of his guilt or innocence because the harms the mob would cause to the towne, and other innocents like his deputies and perhaps even himself would most likely cause the greater harm. Despite the affront to collective notions of justice (eg. "Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done,") and the possible condemnation of an innocent man, it can be well-reasoned that there are situations where the ends do indeed justify the means.

But, Mill would argue - such cases ought to be necessarily rare. Particularly given the possibility that a society's collective perceptions and unrequited desire for justice to be observed could itself eventually become the greater harm. Such cases of mob justice would if frequent so erode the rule of law that either the society would abandon its desire for it, or simply agree not for form mobs. Indeed, the idea that such a problem could occur more than occasionally seems absurd enough to demonstrate the scenario does not actually erode utility theory at all. And that while it might be technically accurate to aruge scenarios justifying the means over the ends exist accepting pleaure/pain-driven principles, stating that the end should never justify the means yet servies as a useful guideline to follow.

[rsanchez]

I just think Young finally had enough of Eush. Rush was always defiant and here he finally conspired against Young, so Young did what came naturally.

[koroush47]

I just think Young finally had enough of Eush. Rush was always defiant and here he finally conspired against Young, so Young did what came naturally.

Yeah, but you shouldn't "kill" somebody for that.

[Replicator Todd]

Yeah, but you shouldn't "kill" somebody for that.

I don't think "the ends justify the means" on Young's actions. Rush is the best scientist they have, he knows or appears to know most about the Destiny, stranding him may very well decrease the crew's chance of survival. Rush also made a good point with Spencer, as mean as this sounds I would never say this in a real situation(I think), but the crew may be better off without Spencer. The chair needed to be tested eventually too, and Young was preventing that while Wray was not, sure Rush was a bit of pansy in not doing it himself.

[koroush47]

I don't think "the ends justify the means" on Young's actions. Rush is the best scientist they have, he knows or appears to know most about the Destiny, stranding him may very well decrease the crew's chance of survival. Rush also made a good point with Spencer, as mean as this sounds I would never say this in a real situation(I think), but the crew may be better off without Spencer. The chair needed to be tested eventually too, and Young was preventing that while Wray was not, sure Rush was a bit of pansy in not doing it himself.

Why would rush do it? He isn't stupid, like you said he is the best scientist they have, he knows the most about destiny, and if he dies it will decrease the chances of survival... So wouldn't it be better if a useless person does it instead? Why would you make your best man take the risks when some other guy can do the same thing? You know what I mean? It just doesn't make sense.

[boxvic]

I never believe that the ends justify the means, because that is an argument that you use as justification to betray your own values.

[EllieVee]

The most-prominent theme in "Justice" was perhaps the question of "Does the end justify the means?" Rush argued in Young's defense that Sgt. Spencer was an undermining force on Destiny, and that his death greatly improved their ability to survive. Thus, were Young the one responsible, the killing can be viewed in a less-monstrous way, as this far out in the galaxy, the crew must do whatever it has to in order to keep going at full efficiency.

Later on, Rush used the same defense for his own actions, arguing that removing Young from command of the ship was a necessary step to ensure the full potential of Destiny was realized. Framing the Colonel for murder was ultimately for the "greater good," as Young (in Rush's mind) is not a leader well-suited to this kind of mission, where the hard choices must be made without hesitation. In retaliation, Young essentially applies the same argument to Rush's life, stranding him on an alien world for the "greater good."

So what do you all think; does the end justify the means in a situation like this? Had Spencer's death been a murder, would it have been justified? Was attempting to oust Young from command, given his leadership style, within limits for the greater good? Did Young's decision to maroon Rush to preserve cohesion on the ship step out of line?

How is it for the greater good when you strand your best scientist on a planet and lie about what happened?

Students of 19th-centry Liberal philosophy might be familiar with something called the "Theory of Utility" or "Utilitarianism"; which is largely a product of the writings of a fellow named John Stuart Mill. Nobody really calls themself a Utilitarian anymore - because other theories on morality (both derivative and otherwise) have really matured the conversation on ethics, particularly in the field of medicine since the core idea of Utility Theory; that good = pleasure (in any forms) and that evil = pain was particularly difficult to provide meaningful quantitative input to a number of moral questions. Among these were (loosely characterized): can the ends justify the means.

I find myself a propoent of Utility Theory, despite its deficiencies, because I also fall into a camp that believes there are absolute moral truths which exist and that, basically, the pleasure/pain principle has merit even if it's difficult to routinely plug in moral problems into a moral calculator and arrive at the answer. Critics of Mill and other Utilitarians raised the issue of a town sherrif being confronted with an angry mob threatening immeasurable harms to many if a prisoner awaiting trial for a grusome crime weren't handed over. In the scenario, the Utilitarian sherriff ends up handing the prisoner over without much consideration of his guilt or innocence because the harms the mob would cause to the towne, and other innocents like his deputies and perhaps even himself would most likely cause the greater harm. Despite the affront to collective notions of justice (eg. "Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done,") and the possible condemnation of an innocent man, it can be well-reasoned that there are situations where the ends do indeed justify the means.

But, Mill would argue - such cases ought to be necessarily rare. Particularly given the possibility that a society's collective perceptions and unrequited desire for justice to be observed could itself eventually become the greater harm. Such cases of mob justice would if frequent so erode the rule of law that either the society would abandon its desire for it, or simply agree not for form mobs. Indeed, the idea that such a problem could occur more than occasionally seems absurd enough to demonstrate the scenario does not actually erode utility theory at all. And that while it might be technically accurate to aruge scenarios justifying the means over the ends exist accepting pleaure/pain-driven principles, stating that the end should never justify the means yet servies as a useful guideline to follow.

I've been saying that Rush is a utilitarian since day one. Well, perhaps since Water. My view is that he's had a big grounding in philosophy and I wouldn't be surprised if Philosophy is one of his doctorates. Interestingly, Oxford (where Rush went) has a combined physics/philosophy degree.

[KEK]

I believe in doing something wrong for the greater good is a good thing, I just don't think in this instance the ends justified the means for either of them. Losing Rush does more harm than good in terms of them maintaining the ship and staying alive, and replacing Young as leader could just as easily landed the ship with an even worse one, not that he's neccessarily doing a bad job...

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Well I think the case of Rush being marooned was less of a case of the end justifies the means and more of a case that Young had lost his temper. We’ve seen how Young is having trouble loosing control, finally when he confronted Rush his anger overwhelmed him after what Rush had done.

[rlr149]

Yeah, but you shouldn't "kill" somebody for that.

he didn't.

[Otarush]

The end justifies the means, unless the means are damaging enough to outweigh any good caused by the end: I think that's what Rush is thinking. I agree with the Utilitarian argument as well: it fits with Rush's cold logic as previously demonstrated (the life of the many outweigh the life of the few, in regards to events in Air.)

I think that if Spencer had actually threatened the life of anyone onboard (again, perhaps?) they would have been within their rights to lock him up deep within the ship, but not shoot him. However, he would then consume supplies without providing any benefit to the crew, and if push came to shove in a food crisis he'd probably starve first.

I think that Young is not the best leader, and that I wouldn't go so far as to frame him for murder like that... but I'm not on that ship, and Rush knew that Young was just going to be fired (and helped insure that with that very ambiguous speech about that conversation about Spencer.) That 'nobody dies in vain' speech of Rush's to Chloe during Air also pops up again. Spencer did not die in vain: his death indirectly let Franklin use the chair. I still think framing Young was pretty bad had it been on Earth.

In the case of Young preserving the ship's cohesion: Rush tried to do a similar thing with far less extreme methods, and Young was rather ticked at that. Furthermore, stranding the only guy who fluently speaks Ancient is a dumb thing to do, especially since they can't trust anyone LRCing in from Earth. The best thing to do would have been to expose Rush's tampering with evidence.

Rush lied. Young attempted murder (and if Rush weren't a main character, it would be murder.) I think in this case the qualification of 'the end justifies the means' that I added comes into play: lying is not nearly as damaging as essentially killing the guy who's their only hope of getting home. (Eli's smart, but he can't read Ancient fluently and doesn't know the tech as well as Rush.) Hence, by this argument, I think that when Rush gets back it's going to get even nastier on that ship, and I can't wait until the next episode!

[s09119]

How is it for the greater good when you strand your best scientist on a planet and lie about what happened?

Oh, I wasn't arguing for either side in my post, I was just outlining the basic premise of the thread. Personally, however, I believe that Rush was justified in what he did, although Young was certainly within his rights to punish him when the truth came out. Rush knew that Young's set of morals would never allow anyone to sit in that chair, but the information within is probably the only way to ever get full control of the ship. In the grand scheme of things, someone would need to do it in order for them all to survive.

[Data57]

Just to throw this out there.

When I watch rush I don't see him as wanting to get home, he has his own goals. So leaving him behind might be leaving the best scientist there sure, But is it leaving their best chance to get home behind? Personally I don't think so, cause I don't believe Rush wants to leave. Being that he would never actively try to find a way home. Rush was going to be a problem day in and out, Young knew this. Best way for young to deal with that was to get rush off the ship really. Is it right? likely not. To many of the Civs listen to Rush and believe what Rush says.

Youngs end was to remove a constant problem, and someone that will infact work against everyone on the ship to get what he wants, which is not the same as what everyone wants. Which is to get home.
And really Youngs only means was to get Rush off the ship. Locked away in some part of the ship wouldn't do it.


Oh and Hello, I've visited this site for ages, but never bothered to post things. So Hello All.

[kansaikimono]

The end justifies the means, unless the means are damaging enough to outweigh any good caused by the end: I think that's what Rush is thinking. I agree with the Utilitarian argument as well: it fits with Rush's cold logic as previously demonstrated (the life of the many outweigh the life of the few, in regards to events in Air.)

I think that if Spencer had actually threatened the life of anyone onboard (again, perhaps?) they would have been within their rights to lock him up deep within the ship, but not shoot him. However, he would then consume supplies without providing any benefit to the crew, and if push came to shove in a food crisis he'd probably starve first.

I think that Young is not the best leader, and that I wouldn't go so far as to frame him for murder like that... but I'm not on that ship, and Rush knew that Young was just going to be fired (and helped insure that with that very ambiguous speech about that conversation about Spencer.) That 'nobody dies in vain' speech of Rush's to Chloe during Air also pops up again. Spencer did not die in vain: his death indirectly let Franklin use the chair. I still think framing Young was pretty bad had it been on Earth.

In the case of Young preserving the ship's cohesion: Rush tried to do a similar thing with far less extreme methods, and Young was rather ticked at that. Furthermore, stranding the only guy who fluently speaks Ancient is a dumb thing to do, especially since they can't trust anyone LRCing in from Earth. The best thing to do would have been to expose Rush's tampering with evidence.

Rush lied. Young attempted murder (and if Rush weren't a main character, it would be murder.) I think in this case the qualification of 'the end justifies the means' that I added comes into play: lying is not nearly as damaging as essentially killing the guy who's their only hope of getting home. (Eli's smart, but he can't read Ancient fluently and doesn't know the tech as well as Rush.) Hence, by this argument, I think that when Rush gets back it's going to get even nastier on that ship, and I can't wait until the next episode!

Definitely Rush should manage more overt behavior. Robert Carlyle is wonderful when he gets fighting mad! Check out Formula 51 which also stars Samuel Jackson.