Yeah- it absolutely depends on the situation. Even then, though, it's iffy, and totally subjective. For example, if you had to kill a million people to achieve world peace, that would be to some a very acceptable cost. To others, however, the killing of one is the same as the killing of any number, and unacceptable. Who chooses where to draw the line?
It's of course interesting to think that different people would have polar views on what exactly is morally acceptable. This makes it difficult to know exactly which "means" are justified and which are not. For myself, it's simple- if I have a moral problem with the means used to achieve an end, then the end does not justify them. But as for how to apply that to a societal scale, I have no idea.
It's of course interesting to think that different people would have polar views on what exactly is morally acceptable. This makes it difficult to know exactly which "means" are justified and which are not. For myself, it's simple- if I have a moral problem with the means used to achieve an end, then the end does not justify them. But as for how to apply that to a societal scale, I have no idea.