Do Ends justify Means?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Do the ends justify the means? I go 'round and 'round on this one. The only consistent answer I have is "it depends".

When I was young, there was no doubt that the answer was "yes". You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. You can't defeat injustice and corruption with a smile and a fine argument. You can't defeat them with nonviolent protest. They are too strong, too cynical, too ruthless. The only language they understood is that of force. This was all theoretical mind you. What, me get my hands dirty?

But I realized that even the purest of revolutions usually become as corrupt as what they replace. The French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, Chairman Mao, Cuba, everywhere. (IMO the verdict is still out on the American Revolution). After the rhetoric, it was all the same--- injustice replaced injustice, blood replaced blood. IMO there were no Ends. We live by the Means.

But that didn't satisfy either. Surely some wars are just (relatively). The Nazis had to be fought to the death, if only to save our own asses. If anything means anything, some injustices must be resisted by all Means. I have never been to battle but (I think) I am not a pacifist.

So altho I still believe we live by the Means and that there can be no Utopian End which justifies barbarous Means. But I also think that we are caught in an endless series of Ends that all too often require atrocious Means. I have concluded that short-term, quickly realized Ends sometimes justify ghastly Means.

No point in giving examples. Any thoughts?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 17, 2001

Answers

Lars:

A mixed strategy is nearly always the best strategy, so your answer of "it depends" is trivially correct. However, there is a matter of emphasis which can be extremely important.

One key difference I see between liberals and conservatives is, liberals are more concerned with results than conservatives, who in turn are relatively more concerned with procedures. Conservatives understand that even the best procedures (sets of rules) aren't going to produce the most satisfying results in every case. BUT, abandoning procedure to force desired results becomes arbitrary too easily. Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, and any attempt to enforce equality of results as opposed to opportunity is surely living by the sword. Soon enough, their opponents will be in power, and suddenly procedures become paramount to *these same people*. Amazing, isn't it?

Essentially, home cooking killed boxing. Yeah, the hometown crowd just loved it when they scraped the local boy off the canvas and held his unconscious arm in the air. But the sport itself could not tolerate this. The urge for instant gratification is always there, and the temptation to break the rules just this once, and in a very good cause, is hard to resist. You do reap what you sow, and the ends you get are always a reflection of the means you used.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.


That seed of optimism that was showing signs of sprouting has just been ground under Lars heel. Thanks, buddy.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 17, 2001.

Rich:

Don't give up just yet. I'm about as liberal as folks come and I think Lars is simply putting out "feelers" here, and didn't see myself at all in Flint's response.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


Do the ends justify the means?

No.

-- Swampthing (in@the.swamp), February 17, 2001.


Swampy,

Why not?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 17, 2001.



Rich, you are too cryptic for my own good. What seed of optimism?

Anita, right, just a feeler. Just something to say of a Saturday nite.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 17, 2001.


A question for the ages Lars. I shot a squirrel this morning because I didn't want it around this fall eating the pecans.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 18, 2001.

Lars, you are such a cherry. The pigs must be offed, continually. They will not go away just to be "nice". They will keep returning; eternal vigilence is necessary. Comrade Castro understands this. He knows that United Fruit stands ready to re-enslave Cuba by buying corrupt officials. He knows that Michael Corleone stands ready to return Cuba to the status of Yankee bordello. Paradon!

-- (LeonTrotsky@Bay_of.Capitalist_pigs), February 18, 2001.

"Do ends justify means"

Do Depends justify beans?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 18, 2001.


"Conservatives understand that even the best procedures (sets of rules) aren't going to produce the most satisfying results in every case. BUT, abandoning procedure to force desired results becomes arbitrary too easily."

Flint, are you still angry about the contentious Florida election? You seem to be trying to vent, in a constricted way, but I guess that's better than nothing - trapped gas is no laughing matter.

It turns out that Gore did win, but let's get beyond that now, c'mon!! There's still a lot of damage duby'a can do to his country before his four years are up and I expect you to get behind him on this!

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 19, 2001.



Bemused:

I find it interesting that you have selected this one instance of a general principle. At least you recognize this propensity in action, which is definitely a step in the right direction. But the general principle still holds -- that ends are simply milestones in an endless procession of means, and therefore where you stand at any given time is a function of how you got there. Shortcuts and quick fixes have a way of coming home to roost. Wed in haste, repent at leisure, right?

Now, on to the politics. I don't know what you mean by "Gore did win". Are you referring to the *projection* the Orlando Sentinel newspaper reporters made, based on about 10% of the votes examined by hand, without second opinions by anyone whose political preferances may differ, and accepting admittedly invalid ballots as votes if the "intent was clear"? I find it simply astounding that you are so eager to bless such a process by treating their "results" as a fact. Can you POSSIBLY justify doing so, other than out of sheer blind desire?

Yes, ANY president can do a lot of damage or a lot of good in 4 years. But Bush hasn't had a chance to do either, yet all you can see is the damage that hasn't even happened yet! I'd rate his start at about a B-, not great but nothing irrecoverable either.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 19, 2001.


Nemesis-

Best laugh I had this week!

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 19, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ