- The ends justify the means - Meaning we could justify torture if it prevents terrorism for example. Some people would consider this fine, others not.
- Some moral principles or duties have intrinsic value independent of their outcomes - For example, telling the truth might be considered right not because of its consequences, but because honesty itself is inherently valuable.
- Both means and ends matter - Actions are justified when there's moral harmony between how we act and what we achieve. This suggests that good ends achieved through ethical means have a different moral quality than the same ends achieved through harmful means.
Probably I'd put myself in the latter camps, rather than the first two. But then I haven't thought about this too deeply myself, so happy to hear the opinions of others who might have thought about it more :)
However, wouldn't most people say that? It is kind of a cop-out because it let's you decide on each moral dilemma in a case by case basis -> which I think is actually necessary since you can't say that ends justify/don't justify means blankly.
Do you by any chance know Alex O'Connor? I listened to an ethics episode of his podcast and it was quite interesting and well-spoken in my opinion. (It is about veganism again, I suppose it is a useful theme for ethical arguments.)
https://overcast.fm/+AARh0bWaidM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAOzGNFamgQ (the same content but video)
This latter approach also extends very nicely to probabilistic methods - if I pass garbage on the beach, I can pick it up with probability Y%, and adjust Y so that if most a lot of people make the same choice, then all the garbage will be picked up.
