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.

Gamaliel

Hold on...who is setting the limits?

Bin Laden, G Dub, Me?

G
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

K

Isn't saying that the ends justify the means, but the means must be limited by x, y, and z, the same as saying that the ends don't justify the means?

Shadowy Man

No, I don't think the ends justify the means.

Means is all that really counts in the world.

"We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane." - Kilgore Trout

winstonjen

But the means are part of the ends, so for the ends to justify the means, the means have to be good as well.

dangin

There is no ought, there is only what we do. Some of the greatest goods have come from "evil" acts. Some of the greatest evils have come from "good" acts. Sometimes what we intend never happens no matter what we do. I think this is an unanswerable question.

abe smith

I am probably w/ Dangin ^^^^'s statement here on this. Abe

doodad

It appears that the concept of what is an acceptable mean varies with the culture holding that view. For example, it appears to be acceptable under fundamentalist Islamic beliefs to cut off one's hand as punishment for theft.
Other cultures do not share that belief. The US takes some heat because of its use of capital punishment because other countries believe it is not justified.

I think the OP was speaking of generally accepted
concepts of what is an acceptable "mean".

doodad

Dirty Harry, Arnie Swartz..., and Rambo are examples of those using some pretty questionable means to reach their objective. I love it, but in real life these characters were pretty barbaric.

Gamaliel

Does "generally" mean globally or locally accepted concepts and what are they?

G