Is doing the wrong thing for the right reason ever morally justified?

[Gentile]

Cannabis-growing couple who donated most of the £400k proceeds they made over six years to charity jailed for three years each.

[speling bee]

Cannabis-growing couple who donated most of the £400k proceeds they made over six years to charity jailed for three years each.

It doesn't appear to be legally justified.

[EternalOptimist]

It doesn't appear to be financially justified

[dogzilla]

Cannabis-growing couple who donated most of the £400k proceeds they made over six years to charity jailed for three years each.

In this case, no, because they are still giving their profits to someone. You can't just claim because you gave it to charity it makes you a better person. What do charities do with money? 75% of it ends up in the pockets of people like us. I've done work for charities and they hemorrhage money

If however they were giving their crop to local multiple sclerosis sufferers then I'd have a different opinion. But in the end they were charging people and operating a business.

[The Spartan]

It doesn't appear to be legally justified.

I agree, it's not legal so even though they used the money for a good cause they would have known they were using an illegal means to accomplish it.

[speling bee]

In this case, no, because they are still giving their profits to someone. You can't just claim because you gave it to charity it makes you a better person. What do charities do with money? 75% of it ends up in the pockets of people like us. I've done work for charities and they hemorrhage money

Sure, but if they worked on the other 25%?

[d000hg]

Is this just the "would you kill Hitler" debate?

[Gentile]

Interesting opinions.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one myself. Part of me feels that three years is a bit harsh. But there's no denying it wouldn't be if the profits had instead been used to fund holidays for themselves to Disneyland, or a large mansion.

It's a bit like the Trolley Problem, which is a thought experiment in ethics that's all about when it's acceptable to do bad things to achieve outcomes for the greater good, and considers the difference in morality between allowing and causing something bad to happen for good reasons. And then there's the fact that notorious cocaine trafficker Pablo Escobar used to build hospitals, football stadiums and churches for poor communities in his native Columbia, and he sponsored children's football teams. He also had more than 600 police officers murdered at the height of his infamy.

So, on balance, the end doesn't always justify the means, and probably doesn't in this case.

[EternalOptimist]

Is this just the "would you kill Hitler" debate?

ah. that appears to be left justified

[MarillionFan]

Is the a Blair the war criminal thread?