The Ends and the Means

If you could see into the future and knew without a shadow of a doubt that most people would be better off (in their own opinion) than now, then yes the end would justify the means. But without accurate visions of what could be, I'm not sure the death and destruction is worth it, especially if there are other means of obtaining a utopia all are satisfied with.
 
Baron Max said:
No, Doreen, I didn't say anythig about the outcome. I said, "I don't think one can say "the end justifies the means" without knowing the specifics of the situation. In the case of the OP, I must agree with Norsefire."

See? "...the specifics of the situation...." Not the specifics of the outcome.

What I think Norsefire wanted to discuss or wanted our opinions on was the "What if" scenario ...."IF" we knew that paradise was possible, what steps would we be willing to take to get that paradise for the whole human race. See?

Yes, I understood your thoughts that doing nasty things "might" cause some mental problems in some of the people. But I kept thinking that if it really was a paradise at the end of it, then those with "mental problems" might see that it was all worth it ....and snap out of their mental state of anquish over all of their nasty deeds.
Click to expand...
Notice how you deny you are talking about outcomes and then talk about outcomes. I was being generous when I said you were talking about a certain outcome, because that is the best defense for your position. Otherwise we can be sure of the death, destruction and injustice, but not of the paradise, and thus all my objections are quite appropriate.

I don't believe he said anything about the future paradise ...other than it was a paradise. I took that to mean a paradise as defined by the reader, NOT the writer of the post. He did, after all, ask each of us what WE would do to achieve that paradise, so I assumed he meant "my" idea of paradise.
Click to expand...
Same problem. It is the same hubris to assume that what you think is paradise and are willing to kill, steal, destroy and be unjust to achieve - his ideas of part of the means - is what other people will think is paradise. And the revolutionaries I mentioned, from both the right and left, thought they were making either paradise or things much better and 1) they were wrong that their ideas were in any way universal and 2) they kept up their means until their form of government fell.

Norsefire believes that the ends ALWAYS justify the means. An idea you see no reason to challenge, despite history and despite his interests in being part of a totalitarian elite in your own country. You do however want to make sure that my resistence to his idea that the ends always justify the means is backed up by evidence and completely logical, etc.

I find this odd.
 
parmalee said:
i think i'm on to something here: caesar, napoleon, st. paul, mohammed, alexander the great, lenin--what do they all have in common? they were all great leaders and they were all epileptics. (here's one of many dubious sources.)

so it stands to reason that the sole criterion by which the "exceptionally qualified" are to be determined is epilepsy.
Click to expand...
Actually I would be interested in knowing what kinds of psychological traits, if any, tend to occur more in epileptics - broken down by type of epilepsy also. Those who have visions or serious alterations in perception, it would seem to me, would have certain traits in common, ones I might feel philosophically sympathetic toward. If you know more, feel free to start a thread in human sciences of philosophy, especially if the people themselves go into how they relate their perception of things to epilepsy.
 
Doreen said:
.... It is the same hubris to assume that what you think is paradise and are willing to kill, steal, destroy and be unjust to achieve - his ideas of part of the means - is what other people will think is paradise. And the revolutionaries I mentioned, from both the right and left, thought they were making either paradise or things much better and 1) they were wrong that their ideas were in any way universal and 2) they kept up their means until their form of government fell.
Click to expand...

Yes, but prior to the end, the revolutionaries "thought" that things would be better or paradise, etc. See? Again, they did NOT "know" what the end result would be, but they dreamed of something like paradise.

Doreen said:
.... Norsefire believes that the ends ALWAYS justify the means. An idea you see no reason to challenge, ....
Click to expand...

Doreen, I think I have challenged it. I've said before that one can't possibly make that statement until the end is realized or is known. How can you say anything about "the end" if you don't know what "the end" is??

I wasn't challenging your challenge of the statement. I was challenging the thought process that you used to challege it ....that some mental thingie was going to affect all the people because of the horrible things they'd done. I questioned that thought ...and asked you to prove it.

Baron Max
 
Norsefire said:
Do the ends justify the means?

Hypothetical situation: You have a choice to lead humanity to a prosperous and secure future... whatever 'paradise' means to you, you can lead humanity to this paradise.

However, if you accept the long-term paradise, you will first have to go through hell. You will have to kill, steal; you will have a world with death and destruction and great injustice.

So what is your choice? And do the ends justify the means?

I must say yes, personally, I do believe the ends always justify the means. However, what is your opinion?
Click to expand...

I try to exist in a state in which my means are my end. However, obviously this can come into conflict with an ideal future outcome. Trying to reconcile the two is the hard part.
 
The notion that the end justifies the means is merely a self-deception used to avoid having to acknowledge one's true values and to assuage feelings of guilt. Typically used when someone other than the speaker must suffer a loss. People tend to get rather indignant when the tables are turned.

An honest statement would be, “I value forcing my concept of utopia upon the world more than the loss, suffering, and lives of those other people I don't know.”

It's much easier to justify your behavior when someone else has to pay the price, isn't it?

~Raithere
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
If the ends don't justify the means, then what does???
Click to expand...

Nothing. Or, the means -the processes - themselves should be just, at least acceptable. It's a problematic analogy, but I will use it: Just as evolution. What is the end? No one knows, because there is no such a thing as "final product (or result) of the evolution". Yet, each and every species must fit the rules of life. In other way of looking at it, life's rules -as we know- are the sum of species.

The problem with the analogy lies in here: Our actions are planned, unlike evolution. So if we say "ends justify means", this is nothing to do with the nature of things, it's all about human politics. And human politics can be adjusted not to justify any means according to end. It's optional, not mandatory.
 
Baron Max said:
Yes, but prior to the end, the revolutionaries "thought" that things would be better or paradise, etc. See? Again, they did NOT "know" what the end result would be, but they dreamed of something like paradise.
Click to expand...
Well, this supports my position better than Norsefire's and I agree.
Doreen, I think I have challenged it. I've said before that one can't possibly make that statement until the end is realized or is known. How can you say anything about "the end" if you don't know what "the end" is??
Click to expand...
Precisely.

I wasn't challenging your challenge of the statement. I was challenging the thought process that you used to challege it ....that some mental thingie was going to affect all the people because of the horrible things they'd done. I questioned that thought ...and asked you to prove it.
Click to expand...
Well if this is the problem you had with my post you should have noticed I said 'often.'

As opposed to Norsefire's 'always'.
 
Norsefire said:
Do the ends justify the means?

Hypothetical situation: You have a choice to lead humanity to a prosperous and secure future... whatever 'paradise' means to you, you can lead humanity to this paradise.

However, if you accept the long-term paradise, you will first have to go through hell. You will have to kill, steal; you will have a world with death and destruction and great injustice.

So what is your choice? And do the ends justify the means?

I must say yes, personally, I do believe the ends always justify the means. However, what is your opinion?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your scenario requiring the use of any means to get there. Simply because it's just one persons vision, Hitler anyone ?

If you changed it to say: We know a man has developed an agent that will destroy all life on earth and he is prepared to release it, then yes, whatever it took to stop that person would be justified, because of the alternative.

So, yes in some scenarios I would agree but certainly not always.
 
Survival is the ultimate good (and extinction the ultimate failure). All other philosophies and ideals stem from that one thing, for without it, the others can not exist at all. If there's no survival, there's no morality, no metaphysics, no debating, no anything. Survival is king. Survival is the first order of good; the necessity.

Second order would be that which we would prefer, that which is not a necessity but is for whatever reason preferable. For example, living in a society which treats everyone equally is something many people see as a good thing.

If that second order of good (well, seen as good by many at least) does not go against the first, then it is acceptable. If a second order ideal goes against the first order in any way, then it is fundamentally bad.

(My terms such as first and second order are purely for descriptive purposes, to help explain things. They're not any formal terminology developed by anyone famous.)
 
Scaramouche,

Totally off topic and no insult intended, but everytime I see your user name I utter the words:

will you do the Fandango

Damn you Scaramouche, damn you to hell. LOL.
 
Scaramouche said:
<- Can't dance. :(
Click to expand...

LOL. No it's from the Queen song "Bohemian Rhapsody"

"Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango
Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very fright'ning me
(Galileo) Galileo (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo figaro"

But I suspect you already knew that.
 
When it comes to politics/philosophy, I believe that the means justifies the ends.
 
This whole "justification" thing is completely silly. "Justified" by whom? Unless there's some agreement about that, even using the word "justified" is silly.

Hell, Hitler felt that he was "justified" in attacking Poland. Does that mean that he was justified? Or do we have to have some majority of people of the world to agree?

What does it mean for something or some act to be "justified"?

We might also be somewhat concerned about the term "end" as used here. When is something or some act "ended"? Or are all things connected continually throughout life? You know, if a butterfly flaps its wings in Mexico, does that cause a breeze in Hong Kong? And does that breeze in Hong Kong enough for the poor fisherman to sail out to catch fish to feed his family for one more day?

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top