posted
"We believe the world is a better place now that Saddam is gone. Therefore, it is okay that we invaded a nation without provocation."
"We believe the world is safer with Jose Padilla behind bars. Therefore, it is okay for us to arrest him without giving him due process."
"We believe the world is better off if Bush is not reelected. Therefore, it is okay for us to make up lies about him to achieve that goal."
"We believe the world would be better off if America was out of power. Therefore, it is okay for us to kill innocent American civilians in terrorist attacks to take America out of power."
It seems like these days everyone is under the impression that the ends justify the means. That is to say that if an act "makes the world a better place" then it is a good thing to do, no matter what.
Is this true? Do the ends justify any means?
Bush has publicly said that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man and that the world is now better off without him. This is true. But his implication is that ANYTHING that we believe makes the world a better place is automatically justified, no matter what means are used to achieve it. Is this so?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on degrees. I am reminded of Alvin in one of the Alvin books trying to prevent Verity from destroying a law for his sake, lest society fall apart. Now, the thing is, if it is a stupid law which hurts people and benefits none, I saw, break it. It's the only way to make a shift. But if it is a law that keeps eveyrthing from falling apart... It's too difficult and big a topic.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
all good points but we really do need bush out of office. and I don't think we need to make up any lies about him to do it.
Posts: 122 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutley ends justify means, the problem is that the "ends" have to include everyone and everything effected by the action. For instance, the effect of the invasion isn't just Saddam out of power, it also all of the people who dies in the battle. The ends is really just what condition the universe is in after the means. At least that's the way I see it.
posted
Hmm, at risk of stepping on American toes when I'm just a humble Aussie, I have no comment on whether or not Bush should be out of office. But you bring up a good conversation piece. Addressing one of the issues specifically now-
While I do believe that Iraq and Earth is better off without a man like Saddam, they sure took their sweet time getting him, didn't they... and I'm not talking about since May, or even the previous Gulf War. The US have made some extremely poor diplomatic decisions, yet they still reap the awards every time they go back to clean up a mess that wouldn't even be there if they never interfered in the world in the first place.
None of it makes sense. It's like noticing that your brother is really bad at a video game that his friend owns, and really kicks your brothers arse at. So, because you're kind (or you want your brothers oil ^_^) for Christmas you get him that game with a booklet on how to play the game, but when he gets too good at that game and starts beating you, you take the game controller and bean him with it until he agrees never to play you again.
But anyway, I've ranted too much I think. Best of luck for Christmas everyone, and be careful about giving video games to your siblings.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love ethical maxims. So much opportunity to throw bs into the equation and justify anything your heart desires. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutley ends justify means, the problem is that the "ends" have to include everyone and everything effected by the action.
Suppose we knew could capture Osama bin Laden and get him to willingly give away all of al Qaeda's secrets simply by torturing all of the innocent children in the bin Laden family until he inevitably submitted to us. Suppose we were certain it would work. Would it be okay, since the ends justify the means?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the condition of the world would be better than it was before that action yes, if it would be worse, no. I'll leave you to decide which one of those options your scenerio fits.
posted
Don't be a politician now. What if YOU had to decide which to choose, and I'm not available as a lifeline to tell you?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had a lifeline it would not be you Tres, no offense.
Well I avoided the question because A) I'm not really sure what it has to do with this thread, and more importantly B) I don't know. Probably I would say no it wouldn't be worth it but I haven't thought it through very hard and I don't like making defenitive statments on things I haven't thought through enough.
posted
Depends on the ends. Keeping my children alive, for example, is an end I'd use whatever means necessary to achieve.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Rakeesh! I haven't seen you in awhile. Have I just been in the wrong posts?
Anyway, morally, the ends do not justify the means.
Historically, they do. The winners write the history and so they actually go back and justify the means all the time.
For me, I want my country to survive because I want my family to do more than survive, I want us affluent. So, when it comes right down to it, I would support almost anything NECESSARY to keep us from having to change our way of life for the worse.
The key there is "necessary." Necessary to a politician usually means "expedient" because they can't afford to think beyond the next election. And that always gets us into trouble, especially in foreign policy where the best approach is almost always "do nothing quickly."
This mess in Iraq is a case in point, as far as I'm concerned. We built up Saddam (and our friend bin Laden) over the years. Then they both turned out to be less under our control than we would've liked. And then they turn on us. So we spend 100x what the original situation (the one that prompted us to fund these jerks in the first place) would've cost us just trying to undo the monsters we created.
And we keep doing it.
The guy in Pakistan is going to be our next one. Wait and see!!!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
tabi, why is it you think that Bush need not be reelected? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying that I strongly Disagree with you and want to no your reasoning. I do not mean to jump on you, I just find this to be interesting and wish to know your thoughts.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It’s way to simple to say the “ends justify the means” or the “ends don’t justify the means.” Each is a gross oversimplification of ethical inquiry.
The ends have to be included in any moral calculus. It’s not OK to shoot a man because you want his RotK tickets. It is OK to shoot him if he’s about to push a busload of children off a bridge and there’s no other way to stop him.
Simply saying “the end’s don’t justify the means” is never a sufficient moral condemnation of any action. It is necessary to say these particular ends are not sufficient to justify these particular means. That will take into account not only the moral repugnance of the means, the moral beneficence of the ends, but also the pragmatic assessment of probability that the means will result in the desired ends and the potential for harmful results.
That being said, there are certain means for which exist no justifying ends. However, I think isn’t very helpful to try to come up with a list. Rather, it is better to examine real situations and decide whether to implement real means to attain real ends on a case by case basis.
This is not to be taken as a relativistic philosophy. All of this presupposes a concrete set of moral principles that can be used to judge the morality of the means and ends. It is possible to say that “preservation of life is a moral good” in the general sense. However, applying that principle alone does not help decide all situations, including the example above.
Even a “greatest good for greatest number” philosophy requires a means to assess the “good” as it applies to each person. Reformat the example above so that killing 5 people is the only way to stop them (acting in concert) from killing one person. My moral compass tells me it is still correct. This is true even though on its face I am violating the “preservation of life is a moral good” since there will be less people alive once I act than there would be had I not acted.
This result is arrived at because there are many general moral principles that conflict with each other. Moral calculations involve recognizing the moral principles involved in a situation and arriving at the appropriate balance between those that conflict.
And I’m not touching any of the specific examples here. This will be much more interesting as a philosophical argument than another tired Bush bashing/Bush defending thread.
posted
Dagonee, I'm sorry, but I believe that there have to be moral absolutes or there's no point in talking about morals.
What you are saying is essentially true, but is an exercise in pragmatics, not morality.
We live in the real world, not a moral utopia. So there are "reasons" and "exculpating factors" that are considered in all decisions. That doesn't make that a process of moral-based decision making. It makes a process of dealing with reality as best we can, all the while realizing that we may be compromising our morals as we do so.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
What you are saying is essentially true, but is an exercise in pragmatics, not morality.
There's a difference?
What is a good if it is not a "good for"? It seems to me that there can be moral absolutes only to the extent that there are teleological absolutes, and while I can think of a couple of things that come pretty close, I can't think of any that are truly absolute.
And yet I think there is plenty of point in talking about morals: it's the attempt to discover and persuade toward our desires.
Posts: 450 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
You misunderstood my post - I do believe in moral absolutes. However, I believe that the application of morality is highly dependent on the situation. I don’t believe killing a maniac to save a busload of children is compromising morality – it’s serving morality.
It is the presence of the absolutes that make it possible to arrive at a different decision in two seemingly similar situations and not be a hypocrite.
Once you are discussing means and ends, you are discussing the real world – should X person do Y thing to accomplish Z end? Morality is meant to apply to the real world – it is not abstract or merely ideal.
Morality is a means of valuing actions, outcomes, and desires. It must be viewed as a whole – a complex system of inter-related assignments of worth to these things. When a situation invokes a single thing to be valued, there is no “compromise.” In the real world, all non-trivial situations involve competition between two principles of morality. The solution must arrive at a compromise between the two principles – but this is not a compromise of morality, taken as a whole.
Sometimes the distinction is easy – you don’t kill to protect a nickel. Sometimes the distinction is hard, particularly when the principle involved supports two or more actions.
Of course, in practice, people allow that which will benefit them or theirs to influence what worth is placed on which principle. But my point is that even a perfect application of morality will involve compromise between moral principles, but will not be a compromise of morality itself.
posted
BrianM, do you just seek for opputunities to attack bush? Because the thanking the troops thread was way out of line, a straight out attack on the people who are dying in the service of oyur country! Your life! And your freedoms! GDI can't you just thank the for doing what they think is right? You ungrateful SOAB.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ah, I see your point. Whereas thinking about it my way almost guarantees that living a truly moral life is not an option in a real world, you have explained that moral choices are possible and must be placed in a context of reality to be judged as truly moral or not.
posted
Exactly, Bob. Of course, if everyone lived a perfectly moral life, we wouldn’t have these issues. So it’s officially everybody else’s fault!
Of course, I do believe that this same reasoning can be used to justify a lot of immoral choices – the key to this not being mere relativism is insistence on the underlying principles.
posted
The way I see it there are three bases for justification of actions.
The highest and most impractical is because they are right. Now, we can argue back and forth about how you can determine "rightness" and that is pretty much how I see this part. In the few cases where it's not impossible to really know what the right thing is, it is at least extremely difficult.
This type of justification takes on another dimension when we apply it to other people. How do we know that other people are qualified to know what is right? How can we even tell if they care about doing the right thing? It's extremely problematical.
The human being is a strange creature. Oftentimes, the more we doubt something, the stronger (and especially the louder) we profess it. I have little doubt that the confidence in the rightness of their actions of the terrorists who crashed their planes into is very similar to the confidence that many people in our own culture feel. I also don't doubt that the duplicitous political leaders of the Taliban who claimed that it was right to oppress, torture, and kill people for the crime of disagreeing with them or being a woman differ from many of the leaders of our country largely in that they were given more freedom to act. To maybe clarify, I think that if there were not checks in the way, many of our politicians would act the same.
This situation, these people, don't really rely on rightness for the justification of their actions. They are falling back onto the old standby of might makes right. They are acting as they do only because they can. If power were denied to them in this way, they'd lie, cheat, and steal (heck, most of them already do) to get it some other way.
The sad fact is that most people rarely rise above the level of might makes right justifications. I think this is especially true when we're talking about those who deliberately seek out power. I believe that regardless of the ideology they profess (be it Islam, Christianity, Americanism, Communism, etc.) there is an underlying character structure, in which might makes right plays a major part, that these people have in common.
This idea is umistakable to even a casual student of history. Louis XIV (or maybe XVI, I really don't care) expressed it most clearly when he said "I am the state." For most of their histories, leaders in both Christian and Islamic society were secure in their scripturally justified belief that God invested in them the right to do pretty much whatever they damn well wanted. Their justification was almost never "because it is the right thing to do" - although that was sometimes their excuse - but rather, "because I can". Nor did communist leaders let the fundamental egalitarianism of their doctrine dissuade them from regarding thei citizens as their own personal playthings.
In western society, because of economic changes and, I think, because our leaders were generally so egregiously bad, we had an intellectual revolt against these ideas. While the Magna Carta was a start to this sort of thing, that was more a case of one group of priviledged people wresting power away from another group. I'm talking specifically about the Enlightenment. In the Enlightenment, the individualist tendencies that had been spreading through western society and which were a major contributing cause in the prior revolution of the Reformation caused a drastic rethinking of the justification of actions, especially those of rulers.
While the ideas of the rule of law being applied to everybody and that the ruler was the servent, and not master, of the people he had power over existed before this time (e.g. Plato's Republic) and were in some places paid lip service to, the Enlightenment set out a system by which there iseas were actually to be established and protected. The thinkers of this time called for the abolishment of priviledge (literally the "private laws" of powerful people). They formulated the establishment of rights as a class of things set above laws that could invalidate these laws.
It is no mistake that the enormous changes in political thought of this period corresponded with the growth of the principles of empirical science. The thinkers that believed in the need for checks on the rulers of society extended this concept onto the brain, the putative ruler of the individual. They were convinced that the road to the right or truthful was found by relying on valid conscious justifications.
As anyone who lives in American can tell you, the doctrine of rights and laws is not an ideal system. Western democracy was never intended to be a positive thing. It was set up largely to prevent things (i.e. the bad behavior of leaders) than to foster good things. Strict adherence to unaliable rights prevent us from acting even in the face of obvious detriment. That's why we have the limited cases like not being allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, as the Supreme Court claims whenever they choose to not uphold rights in dangerous situations.
Even with these exceptions, we still have a lot of right protected behavior that is most likely bad for society. Old timers probably remember the free speach for NAMBLA threads of yesteryear. Even with allowing rights to groups that I vehemently disagree with, I prefer our system of rights to the alternative. I have many reasons, but the primary one is that I'm a not rich, not connected intelligent person who doesn't like authority and thinks that the way we generally do things is wrong. People like me die pretty quickly in places where people don't fight for rights even for unpopular people.
The same situation exists in the sciences, although usually without the death. There has to be some latitude in strict empiricism to allow for the creative aspect of theory making and of non-verified (or even non-verifiable) exploration to occur.
All that is to say that exceptions to the rule of law - where ends are going to justify the means - are going to be necessary. It's too rigid to respond to all cases. The big problem is that this puts us back in between the first two types of justifications again. Are we going beyond the rule of law because it is neccessary to do so to do the right thing, or is it just because we want to and have enough power to? This is even more of a problem because, regardless of motive and integrity, deviating from laws can, except in rare cases (e.g. Gandhi-style civil disobediance), come only from a backing of power.
This brings up the issue of trust. In the individual, do you trust your unconstrained thinking to be towards the right rather than the right-for-you? In relation to groups, has the leader or the group of people shown themselves worthy of trust and do they appear to be acting trustworthily right now?
The problem that many Americans seen to have when thinking about foreign relations is that they can't understand why other people don't understand that we're the good guys. Can't they realize that we only invaded Iraq because it was the right thing to do?
Maybe the rest of the world's view of us is unjustified. I don't think that this is true. Don't get me wrong, I think that America has behaved better than pretty much any other prominent country would have in the same situation. I also think that the people who don't like us are, in different ways, often worse than we are. However, being the best in no way makes us good. We're not the guys in the white hats. We're not the good guys. They are right not to trust us. America has a long history of acting out in violation of the rule of law and for doing so for might makes right reasons. People think that we're in Iraq for oil largely because we have a 60+ year history of political buggery in that region directed towards getting us oil.
Some of the attitudes expressed on this board and in other public forums and many of the attitudes that the current and previous administrations seem to be operating under is that we should be acting from a might makes right standpoint. Breaking the rule of law should be a very scary idea, not the default practice. Nations or people who are going to break the law should strain be as above the board as possible. They should work to build up a fund of trust and a reputation for fair dealing.
Saying "We knew Saddam was a bad guy and things are better with him gone, so we were justified in going to war." is a direct rejection of the rule of law. There are laws governing these situations that you are thus ignoring. To make my position clear, I was behind the war, although I didn't trust the administration. I still think that it could have been legally justified (even though I feel that the justifications I was given for the war were based on irresponsiblity and lies). However, what gets me is not the specific flaws made in making the case for war, but rather the general attitude that is not even denying we need to follow the rule of law but is instead an apparent ignorance of the idea of the rule of law. You just can't say that something that broke laws is ok because it had a good result. That returns us to the pre-Enlightenment time of might makes right. It fosters the state of perpetual war as the only way to resolve differences. It brings the jackboots that much closer to my door.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quick historical aside. I recently came across some interesting stuff that they didn't teach me in schools. Apparently, several of the American colonies and some of the states had granted suffrage to women and even to blacks. I had no idea. Anyway, I'd love to think that this was done because of it fitted in with the Enlightenment principles that many of the leading members of these colonies believed in and were trying to institute in this new land and that it was due to the growth of the colonies and states of a population not committed to these ideas that caused the right to vote to be revoked, but I really have no idea. Does anyone have a better idea about this?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm offering a link that might be of interest to some. It's a discussion of Saul Alinsky's analysis of the weighing of means and ends. For those unfamiliar with Alinsky, he was a radical community organizer who died in the 1970s. The article linked to discusses his book "Rules for Radicals," which I first read when I was 14 or 15 and still find myself going back to from time to time.
quote:THE 10 RULES OF THE ETHICS OF MEANS AND ENDS Alinsky presents a set of "rules" on the ethics of means and ends.
1) One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue, and one's distance from the scene of conflict. When we are not directly concerned, our morality overflows: as La Rochefoucauld put it, "We all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others". The further away we are from the conflict, the more we fuss over the moral delicacies.
2) The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. He uses the example of the American Declaration of Independence to elaborate: To the Colonists who drafted it, the Declaration was a glorious document. To the British, it was a deceit, which deliberately ignored the benefits of the British presence. However, if the Colonists had listed the benefits of the British Empire, then they would have constructed a document which was 60% on the side of the Colonists, and 40% on the side of the British. The Declaration was intended to be a call to war. It would be unrealistic to expect a man to join the Revolutionary Army for a 20 per cent difference in the balance of human justice. Therefore, the Declaration had to be 100 per cent on the side of the Colonists and had to 100 per cent denounce the British.
"Our cause had to be all shining justice, allied with the angels; theirs had to be all evil, tied to the Devil; in no war has the enemy or the cause ever been gray. Therefore, from one point of view the omission was justified; from the other, it was deliberate deceit ... The opposition's means, used against us, are always immoral and our means are always ethical and rooted in the highest of human values."
3) In war, the end justifies almost any means. For example, Churchill was asked how he could reconcile himself to siding with the communists, with all the ethical dilemmas this may have created. He responded, "I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby."
4) The judgement of the ethics of means must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point. He uses the example of the Boston Massacre. Patrick Carr, one of the townspeople shot dead by the British, stated on his deathbed that the townspeople had been the aggressors and that the British fired in self defence. This admission threatened to destroy the martyrdom that the Revolutionary Leader, Sam Adams, had invested in the townspeople. Adams thereby set about attempting to discredit Patrick Carr as "an Irish papist who had died in the confession of the Roman Catholic Church." To the British this was an immoral deception and deliberate bigotry.
As Alinsky writes: "Today we may look back and regard Adam's action in the same light as the British did, but remember that we are not today involved in a revolution against the British Empire."
5) Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available. Moral questions may enter when one chooses among equally effective alternate means. But if one lacks the luxury of a choice and is possessed of only one means, then the ethical question will never arise.
6) The less important the end, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7) Success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. Yesterday's immoral terrorist is today's moral and dignified statesman of high standing -- because he was successful. Yesterday's moral statesman is sitting in front of a "war crimes tribunal" today -- because he lost.
8) The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. In short, ethics are determined by whether one is losing or winning.
9) Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments. What means are available? What are our strengths and our resources? How much time have we? Who, and how many will support the action?
I'm not saying I endorse Alinsky 100% - but I find his analyses useful, whether thinking in general terms or struggling with a specific situation.
quote:an apparent ignorance of the idea of the rule of law.
I've posted the links in the other threads, but Britain, Australia, and the US have all published reasoned legal opinions that the invasion was not against the UN Charter or International Law. Disagree with the reasoning if you want, but nobody acted as if International Law didn't exist except Sadaam.
My short answer to the original question, and I will read the rest of the replies when I have more time, is that your ends justify your means until your means become so offensive to others that they make it their end to interfere with your means.
There was this not orthodox rabbi on TV last night saying Channukah had something to do with achieving an end whatever the means. I didn't quite get it all because I was not entirely paying attention up to that point. But I think he was talking more about how humanity wades through adversity to triumph(-ity).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems like these days everyone is under the impression that the ends justify the means. ... Is this true? Do the ends justify any means?
One must consider that such a question only makes sense and has relevance to the degree that humankind is motivated by morals. Human behavior is molded first and foremost by natural selection.
Now, before all you religious anti-evolution people come out in droves, I said "natural selection", not evolution, and I didn't say anything about DNA or reproduction. I'm just talking about the principal of natural selection applied to behavior. Behavior will tend to exist and survive to the degree that it is beneficial, and decay to the degree that it is detrimental. That simple principal is how we train our kids and pets with rewards and punishments.
Morality at the macro level is more beneficial than immorality because it is more economically efficient. So at the level of competition of societies, the process of natural selection exerts pressure towards morality over time.
This is also largely true at the micro level in predominantly moral societies (but interestingly not predominantly immoral societies) in that immoral behavior tends to leave few friends and resources and moral behavior tends to be a successful strategy.
But it is important to note that the benefit to a person's moral behavior comes not from the behavior itself, but from the rewards for its PRECEPTION in others. So the most naturally selective beneficial strategy at a micro level is actually not to be the most moral, but to be PERCEIVED as the most moral. This distinction leads to a splash of risk-taking in human behavior rather than a pure moral strategy.
I suspect that the reason that so many make arguments trying to justify the means based on the ends is because they are ones who's strategy is based more on PERCEPTION than pure MORALITY itself. The moralists, of course, tend to have a problem with that strategy, for the perceptionists have an advantage over the pure moralists unless the moralists can succeed in making the perceptionist look bad. This creates somewhat of a balance of opposing forces towards moral behavior at the macro level and immoral behavior at the micro level in the same society.
As a result, the argument over whether ends justify means is useful in the theory of defining morals, but it is limited in its application toward explaining human behavior. The perceptionist strategy will survive as a naturally selective beneficial strategy even in an environment where it is agreed that morally the ends do not justify the means.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Morality at the macro level is more beneficial than immorality. . .
Try as I might, I can't get my morality macro to work in Access. It keeps giving me errors. Does anyone know of a cheap (free) alternative database program I can use?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
If I had a lifeline it would not be you Tres, no offense. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
