Ms. Siv

Er .... what was your point ?

- S.

abe smith

....Destroying a village & its inhabitants in order to "save" it. Burning heretics in order to save their souls from hell.
And, what do you think Thos Aquinas *really* meant when on 07 Dec 13-whatever he told Brother Reginald that he wd not write any more, because his life's work was "all straw"? The standard interpretation (impossible to verify) is that ThAq meant the reality was too glorious as to be unspeakable. But the option no-one considers is that he may have seeen the bottom drop-out of his belief (as in the garden of Gethsemane); and.....

tronvillain

Anyone who says that the ends always justify the means obviously hasn't thought about the implications of their statement. They presumably mean that a good enough end will justify using terrible means to obtain that end, but what the sentence means is that any end justifies any means used to obtain it, regardless of their relative values.

MadMordigan

Some ends justify some means.

Whether an inaction that allows terrible consequences or an action that causes horrific harm is the lesser of two evils is something people can rationally disagree upon.

Glory

Like bombing the shit out of Croatia in order to stop the ethnic cleansing?

Glory

MadMordigan

Like bombing the shit out of Croatia in order to stop the ethnic cleansing?

Precisely, excellent example. In some situations, a bunch of people are going to die one way or another. The only real difference policy can make is which ones, and maybe, how many.

winstonjen

I feel that they do, but not all the time - there have to be limits on the means used. For example, no terrorist tactics, and the means must be better than doing nothing - for example, the Russian theatre hostage situation. Furthermore, the more extreme means should be tried after the more conventional methods have failed.

Celsus

Ah, I see now. You obviously know nothing about Marxism, despite your posturing. If you can tell me what praxis is, and still show how ends always justify the means given the Marxist idea of praxis, I'll retract that statement. Until then, it's safe to say you don't know what you're spewing out.

Ms. Siv

Finally it all boils down to a cost benefit analysis, doesn't it. If the benefits outweigh the costs ... yes it was worth it, else no.

Of course the "cost" aproportioned is sometimes a subjective value ... like for eg. for human lives or loss of rights etc. Its a tough call, but there is a big subjective component to it.

- S.

Nova Andromeda

--So long as the end is justified then the end must also justify the means. In other words, the end includes the means used to get there. Say you kill 5 people to save 10 people. The means is killing 5 people. The end is 5 dead people, 10 living people, and that you killed 5 people. If the end is justified (depends on the details) then the means must also be justified.