The Ends and the Means

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this question, but one issue your post leaves out is that the means affect the end.

If a bunch of people, who have great ideas about how to run a country, kill and steal their way into power, they often are changed by the means. They come to fit the means. So they are not the people they imagined they would be when they came to power.

Another issue is that the people they kill and steal from, or their families, or even strangers, are affected by the means.

So this future image the revolutionists have in their head is inaccurate because they have changed the people around them. These people are scared or vengeful or distrustful, etc.

People confuse the images in their heads with the future that will be there on the other side of those means.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure where or how you've arrived at that conclusion, but unless you can produce some evidence to back it up, I'm going to have to refuse to believe it. One can make all kinds of "maybe" and "might" statements, but saying them does not make them true.

And ....what's your point? Everything and anything, all of life affects people all the time, but that doesn't mean you don't do things in life.

Why do you say that those people are all scared, etc? Why not happy and joyful that they finally made it to the promised land? Again, Doreen, just saying something doesn't make it necessarily true. The settlers in the western USA went through horrendous trials during the wagon train trips to California, etc. Many people were killed in accidents or of illness, yet when the survivors arrived in California, they weren't scared or vengeful.

I suppose we could say similar things, for example, about the American Revolutionary War. It was a terrible time, lots of killing, lots of misery, lots of death. Yet, when it was all over, I'm sure that the people weren't scared or vengeful or distrusting, etc.

So how and where did you get your ideas about what people might feel like?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Baron, let's look first at your behavior in the thread.

Norsefire posts that he believes the ends always justify the means. I point out things that people who believe this tend not to think of. You opt to demand evidence from me, but not from him.

Do you think Norsefire needs to produce evidence for his belief? If so, why didn't you ask him?

To me it is intuitively obvious that if you begin killing and stealing it changes you. I have read accounts of police, criminals, soldiers, etc. who all talk about this. But if you think differently, please at least state you do. If you really think that killing and stealing do not change most people, people who are trying to change the world for the better, please let me know.

The next sentence, which apparantly you read, deals with that.

You seem to NOT understand that I am responding to someone who is making the assumption that the means will not affect the ends. That they are merely means. I do not think this is case and I am presenting counterexamples. The USAs last couple of noble wars should show how means do not always create a fawning, happy population.

1) please back this up with evidence 2) the analogy is a poor one. Norsefire wants to start a totalitarian regime of the elite of which he considers himself a member. The people you are talking about chose the means and the ends. They did not have them chosen for them. And I'll await your evidence that those who lost family members did not blame themselves or the Natives or Bandits who killed them.

Really. You think the colonists who supported the British were not those things? Also the American armies, at least officially, stayed within the bounds of martial morals of the times. The means they used fit the morals of armed struggles of the time - especially in relation to other colonists.

Same place you got yours.

See Baron, I was not saying what must be the case in all cases where one uses short term immoral techniques to get to some good end. I was pointing out what most people who imagine revolutions in their little brains do not take into account. But Norsefire is a special case. You bring up the American Revolution, but this is a terrible, terrible example in the context of Norsefire's question. I realize you may be unaware of why, but then you are so snide I don't really care. You see whatever side colonists were on, the general idea of the Revolution was to lead to a greater distribution of authority to the colonists. They would be free of England AND they would be participating in a democracy. There was inherent respect for individuals here. Norsefire thinks the masses should not be involved in the control of their own lives. His ends are not their ends. So his means will not be leading them towards greater control of their lives, but to less control. I believe he lives in the US. he wants a totalitarian state. And now he is talking about the means justifying the ends.

Do you really think that my pointing out some of the potential problems has been out of balance to someone like Norsefire?

Should I have said: Oh, I think they will welcome you with cheers and give you their daughters to sleep with.

 

Intuitive? And if you think reading the accounts of only a few people should be the basis of making such important decisions in life or in philosophy, then something is wrong with your idea of evidence and decision-making.

What do you think of all of the people who fought in successful revolutions in the world, Doreen? Numerous revolutions in history have produced some of the greatest nations, with some of the greatest minds in history. So, if they were "changed" by that revolution, then perhaps the change is for the good, huh? And, yes, Doreen, some of those revolutions were vicious and bloodthirsty and terrible.

Where did he state that the means wouldn't affect the ends? But you seem to think that the people would come out the other end as blithering idiots in violent mental turmoil over what they'd done. Such is not necessarily the case.

No, but you should have some evidence for saying such things. Intuition is not much evidence! I understand what you're trying to say, Doreen, but where does it come from? How can you make such statements without some supporting evidence? And, please, just a couple of peoples' experiences shouldn't cloud your own ideas and judgements.

Baron Max

 

No, it doesn't.

What if my understanding of "paradise" is to see humanity which privilage the means more than the ends?

How can you reach a "paradise" when you undermine the all important concepts which are basics to humanity?

Really, so according to you, even Hitler can be justified, is that so?

 

I'm quite sure that Hitler felt he was justified in what he did. And lest you forget, there were millions of Germans who went along with what Hitler wanted and asked of them. So they must have felt it was justified, too. That's a lot of people, don't you think?

Baron Max

 

"A lot of people" my ass. I asked for personal opinion of the person who says that "ends justify means". If you want to give an opinion in this department, give your own personal opinion on Hitler. "A lot of German" justified Hitler; or "Hitler felt justification" do not prove anything, or it does not contribute anything to "ends justifies means" argument.

 

So what are you seeking here, Baftan? You want something from me that every person on Earth will agree with?

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. In the end, humanity would be living in paradise, without want or conflict or strive or stress. For the good of humanity, that end justifies the means.

But I must warn you, just that statement alone ( "the end justifies the means") is not always or necessarily true. One must necessarily attach conditions or scenarios to it in order to make that determination.

Baron Max

 

Could you provide some evidence of this assertion, please.

Were you incapable of dealing with the places where I dealt with this issue in my post above?

So you agree with him that the ends always justify the means? Could you please back this up with evidence?

. I should? Please provide evidence of this. And by the way, one can present reasons in intellectual discussion for a conclusion, without providing evidence.
You are aware that not all reasoning is inductive, yes?

You have given no examples of what you say here, yet you asserted it. I assume it is based on intuition which you are free to use for some reason in the very posts chiding me for only using it, when I did not. I mentioned intuition once, in relation to something I thought most people would agree with. I then asked you to take a stand on the issue, which you seem incapable of. Now you keep using the word intuition, as if this was all I used, without noticing that your post is based, so far, just on intution.

You did not adress the issue of Norsefire using only intuition.

So far, you are a hypocrite.

Since you seem unaware of how totalitarian regimes are viewed by their people after revolutions I will mention the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, Pol Pots Revolution and the revolutions in Chile and Argentina carried out by the military. The latter four revolutions, Max, provide ample evidence that people resent and were scared of people who used whatever means to head towards totalitarian regimes - ask Pinochets lawyers if they remember these things for a long time and if these feelings have serious consequences. Ask yourself why, when informed that I was responding to someone who wants to set up a totalitarian state in your own country by any means necessary you choose to ask me for evidence this might be a problem rather than him for why it wouldnt be.

 

Ah, I see, you think that he means if one can know 100% what the outcomes will be. A situation that does not exist. So you think Norsefire is talking about a mental fantasy, where one has, basically, psychic powers. But remember, even in that situation, it is Norsefire who is talking about this paradise and he may be quite wrong about what is paradise for others. In fact I am sure he is, since I know that I do not want what Norsefire wants. So even if he has this magical gift, in this fantasy scenario, where he knows his revolution will succeed, the ends do not justify the means from my perspective because his ends include a totalitarian regime. I also know that a significant portion of the US population does not want this. Further I know that he does not care what they want, since they are the stupid masses. One person’s paradise is another person’s hell.

 

As a last point BM. Notice that my means in this thread are what you keep criticizing. I am arguing against someone who wants to set up a totalitarian regime in the US even if it causes - note the OP - death and destruction and injustice on the way.

You want my means, in my objections to be just right, despite the ends we are talking about. Interestingly you are not concerned about the means he has used so far in the argument because he is claiming to know the ends.

So in this situation you are concerned about my role and means, but not about his role and means.

I wonder what this says about your role?

 

i think it is quite clear by now that Norsefire only entertains these fantastic scenarios which do not exist.

 

Norsefire: caesar?! you do recall that caesar was an epileptic; or at the very least, he "suffered" from st. vitae's dance? what does that suggest of his leading capabilities? it says a whole lot for me--namely, that i would make the ideal leader!

 

Very good point, especially with regard to the specific scenario Norse gave us. What about a simpler situation. Say there is a plague that could wipe out the human race. One guy is immune and his blood could yield a cure, but he refuses to give blood or be subject to any experiments (maybe he's an enviro wacko who wants the human race to die). Is is justified to force his cooperation, even to imprison him to save the human race? I'd say hell yes.

 

I can think of many situations where I would choose means I would normally avoid. Your example included. I do think contexts affect ethics. I would never, normally, push an old lady to the ground. But if she was on fire and I was going to roll her around to smother the fire, well.....

The longer, however, one engages in horrible means, I think the greater chance, one gets used to those means and they become a part of the ends, as totalitarian regimes show us - the means and the state tend not to wither away.

 

So if epilepsy is the means to becoming a good leader than the means justify the ends.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

Baron Max

 

The would-be tyrant

A curious and exceptionally self-centered suggestion of ends and means.

It's all about the self, isn't it? Oh, the Hell! You'll have to kill and steal and be unjust! Oh, poor you!

And while we're at it, just fuck all the people you're killing, stealing from, and subjecting to injustice. Fuck them right in the ear.

Many a tyrant has followed this path; and they all fail.