Does it? Can it?
Care to discuss?
Care to discuss?
Where "the end justifies the means"
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
"Justification" is such an odd word, so general and so all-inclusive, yet so highly personal and subjective. Yep, it's an interesting word.
As to "Does the end justify the means", the answer can be nothing less than ...YES, to the person who uses those means! If he uses it, by that very act, he's justifying it. How can you see it otherwise?
I might not see it as justified. You might not. Hell, millions might not. But as long as the person doing it feels justified, then it's justified.
Baron Max
As to "Does the end justify the means", the answer can be nothing less than ...YES, to the person who uses those means! If he uses it, by that very act, he's justifying it. How can you see it otherwise?
I might not see it as justified. You might not. Hell, millions might not. But as long as the person doing it feels justified, then it's justified.
Baron Max
Acts that need to be justified often have separate consequences to the desired 'end'.
Sure. But the bigger question is "who" gives any of those acts "justification"?
Me? You? The majority? The government? The Army? The Marines?
Baron Max
I agree with both points raised however I would extend a little:
"Often it is the case where by those that have the power to orchestrate the destiny of the masses tend to just ify their actions with : "it is for their own benefit" in the end so there fore the end is justified even if those masses suffer due to the means"
A bit like a government deciding to ban smoking of tobacco in public.
The addicted persons of course will suffer the consequences of this regulation but the Governement of the day will justify it by stating that it is in their own interests ultimately and that of the governements to force them to alter their addiction.
So typically in it's use "the end justifies the means" is about a sense of serving best interest, ultimately.
Even the addict who has successfully withdrawn from his her addiction will agree in the end that this is true.
But isn't this also the nature also of brainwashing and mass manipulation?
So the ultimate intent of the perpetrator is in question.
btw...long time no chat Baron Von Max...good to see you still hanging around
"Often it is the case where by those that have the power to orchestrate the destiny of the masses tend to just ify their actions with : "it is for their own benefit" in the end so there fore the end is justified even if those masses suffer due to the means"
A bit like a government deciding to ban smoking of tobacco in public.
The addicted persons of course will suffer the consequences of this regulation but the Governement of the day will justify it by stating that it is in their own interests ultimately and that of the governements to force them to alter their addiction.
So typically in it's use "the end justifies the means" is about a sense of serving best interest, ultimately.
Even the addict who has successfully withdrawn from his her addiction will agree in the end that this is true.
But isn't this also the nature also of brainwashing and mass manipulation?
So the ultimate intent of the perpetrator is in question.
btw...long time no chat Baron Von Max...good to see you still hanging around
Are you really sure that you want to slid down that VERY slippery slope??? I can think of many things that could be tossed out on the slope, can't you?
I don't believe, and never will, that such actions on smoking is the federal governments responsibility. Nor, for that matter, the local government. To me, that's treading damned hard on our rights to freedom ...basically our right to freedom FROM government!
It is. But there's no reason to spread out the discussion any more than necessary, is there?
I wholeheartedly disagree. The ultimate result of the action is all that should matter when discussiong "the-ends-means" issue. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator had the best and noblest intentions, if he fucked up the world, then his intentions wouldn't mean shit. No, it's the results versus the means ONLY.
Baron Max
I'm not sure that one can make that assessment without knowing the end results.
Baron Max
I disagree.
To state the ends do or do not justify the means without looking at the situation would be foolish.
Sometimes the ends do indeed justify the means, but those means are always important and should never be overlooked.
Hmm, yeah, I think that's what I said. We have to know both in order to make any kind of judgement.
It's also a bit difficult to know the end results of something. For example, we all know when WW II ended. But what were the long-term consequences? And aren't they still being felt all over the world? So when do we decide to stop and analyze WW II? If we stop too soon, then we might be missing something important.
That's mostly why I don't make judgements about things ...unless someone is holding a gun to my head!
Baron Max
So ..hmmm...a country espousing high democratic values invades another country and subjects the residents to military rule [ even though temporary ] so that democratic values can be installed into that country.
Does the end; "a state of democracy" justify the the use of non-democratic processes to achieve it?
Those that live on in the resultant democracy will probably be grateful however those suffering the use of non-democratic processes would be offended [ a loss of "power of attorney" ] until such time as that power was restored.
For those with the power this issue of means and ends must be one of great vexation don't you think?
Does the end; "a state of democracy" justify the the use of non-democratic processes to achieve it?
Those that live on in the resultant democracy will probably be grateful however those suffering the use of non-democratic processes would be offended [ a loss of "power of attorney" ] until such time as that power was restored.
For those with the power this issue of means and ends must be one of great vexation don't you think?
actually I personally fully agree...however some would like to see democracy come quicker than the people are prepared to move towards.
Attempting to avoid bloody revolution by using overwhelming external force as a revolution by proxy, sort of reeks of contradiction, yet to some this makes perfect sense.
IE
two opposing extremes:
1] the French over throwing the monarchy in a bloody revolution. People power demonstrated.
2] I wont state the obvious
The quest ion that gets raised is:
Should a government stand by and let natural people justice [revolution]occur or step in to avoid the slaughter that is likely?
Should it over ride peoples sovereignty [ power of attorney ] to give them that power free of the blood shed of a full blown revolution?
[the UN would have a huge issue with this sort of thing I would expect]
In fact I would say that it is one main reason why the UN seems to lack the will to enter these types of conflict until it becomes a humanitarian disaster [ after the event but never before the event.]
Of course the questions are not really questioning the examples given but merely asking about the ends justifying the means. [using the above as an example of how this seems to be used]
Last edited:
Actually, Raven, that's one of those "nice sayings" that's never factual. What it should be is something like ... "Democracy can only come about if a few people are willing to put forth the effort (in the name of "the people").
Ain't never been a revolution by "the people". It's always a select, radical, militant few ....damned sure not "all" of the people.
Look at Thailand right now ...a thousand or so demonstrators/protestors are holding the country/government hostage in order to make demands on the elected government to make changes. It's not "the people", it's only a very, very small part of "the people".
Baron Max
Max,
If there is a revolt of a small number of people directing the course of events and the government than that is not Democracy - it's quite contrary to the whole idea of Democracy.
Oh, I agree with your assessment. But don't forget that it's happened in the USA many times in the past ...where small groups of radical individuals have forced changes in the government and in society's rules/standards. And it's happening right now ...with gay rights/gay marriage.
Baron Max
No it is not.
Gays are not forcing the government to act, they are protesting to try and sway the opinions of the people (who are already about 1/2 with them) to acknowledge they, as a minority, should have the same rights as the majority. They are acting within the democratic system to affect change. They are perfect examples of democracy at work.
No different than when blacks were allowed the vote.
They did not force the government to act, the convinced enough people to recognize the fact that they are human and a change was made within the democratic system.
By the way, i do not plan on debating the merits and values of gay marriage here with you, so please don't try and bait me.
Isn't that what we do when we elect representatives for the local, state and federal governments? ...to represent the people?
No, I don't believe that! Our representatives in the government are the ones that should be swayed or convinced by appropriate methods and legal avenues. What protestors are trying to do is skirt those standards of government, which we all voted for, in an attempt to gain recognition for their cause ...usually their own special interests.
And they, too, skirted the accepted standards of the very government that they pretended to want to be part of. And, yes, it's again an issue of special interests that was forced upon people who didn't want it ...and surely didn't want it forced onto them.
Right or wrong ain't got shit to do with it.
If "we, the people" aren't going to abibe by our own elections, then why even have the fuckin' things. Let's just all get out and protest, and whoever is the loudest and longest, wins!
Baron Max
You are wrong.
The poeple voted.
That is Democracy.
It's not a case of special interest, it is a case of a minority convincing most of the people to support their case - or not.
Prop 8 passed in California, because that's what the majority wanted.
Now, the minority is attempting to sway the opinion of the majority so the next time it comes up, they will vote to restore the rights of the gays to marry.
If the majority votes to restore their right to marry, then it will be restored.
If they do not, it will not be.
That is a beautiful example of Democracy in action.
The poeple voted.
That is Democracy.
It's not a case of special interest, it is a case of a minority convincing most of the people to support their case - or not.
Prop 8 passed in California, because that's what the majority wanted.
Now, the minority is attempting to sway the opinion of the majority so the next time it comes up, they will vote to restore the rights of the gays to marry.
If the majority votes to restore their right to marry, then it will be restored.
If they do not, it will not be.
That is a beautiful example of Democracy in action.
Let me ask you Max...
If Texans voted to not allow people of your national descent to vote or marry, would you not try and convince others to overturn that?
If so, that is Democracy in action with the majority protectin gthe rights of the minority.
If not, you are a damned fool.
"When I examined my political faith I found that my strongest belief was in democracy according to my own definition. Democracy-the essential thing as distinguished from this or that democratic government-was primarily an attitude of mind, a spiritual testament, and not an economic structure or a political machine. The testament involved certain basic beliefs-that the personality was sacrosanct, which was the meaning of liberty; that policy should be settled by free discussion; that normally a minority should be ready to yield to a majority, which in turn should respect a minority’s sacred things." - John Buchan
If Texans voted to not allow people of your national descent to vote or marry, would you not try and convince others to overturn that?
If so, that is Democracy in action with the majority protectin gthe rights of the minority.
If not, you are a damned fool.
"When I examined my political faith I found that my strongest belief was in democracy according to my own definition. Democracy-the essential thing as distinguished from this or that democratic government-was primarily an attitude of mind, a spiritual testament, and not an economic structure or a political machine. The testament involved certain basic beliefs-that the personality was sacrosanct, which was the meaning of liberty; that policy should be settled by free discussion; that normally a minority should be ready to yield to a majority, which in turn should respect a minority’s sacred things." - John Buchan