Thank you to all who participated.

We had AI summarise your conclusions.

Looking forward to seeing you at the next Salon Philosophique.
Martin & Jon

 

DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

 

The Subjectivity of Moral Judgment

The consensus of Salon Philosophique suggests a deep skepticism toward the idea that "the ends justify the means," primarily because human judgment is inherently flawed, selfish, and imperfect.

 

While the "means" or tools used in an action are often objective and result in observable harm, the "ends" or justifications—such as justice and fairness—are viewed as entirely subjective concepts that vary by person. Because no single authority can universally decide what is "good," humanity relies on social norms and temperance to function as a whole organism and prevent individual justifications from causing mass sorrow.

 

Some participants argue that certain actions, such as self-betrayal or the use of atomic weapons, must remain absolute moral boundaries regardless of the intended goal.


 

The Role of Context and Scale

Despite the general rejection of the premise, many in Salon Philosophique acknowledge that morality is not fixed and must shift according to situation, history, and life-threatening conditions.

 

On a personal level, while loyalty can lead one to protect family, there are clear limits to this protection based on the severity of the crime committed. A critical distinction is also made between individual and geopolitical ethics: while individuals should prioritize honesty for their own mental health, national leaders are often forced to act "immorally" against rule-breaking enemies to ensure the survival of their people.

 

Ultimately, the ideal remains using good means to achieve constructive ends, though the group concedes that establishing permanent moral laws is a "lost battle" due to the ever-changing nature of context.