Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

ntm wrote

There is no end. Actions reverberate and will always have consequences, even if you're not around to observe them. Anyone who tells themself that "the end justifies the means" presupposes omniscience, and that's dangerous.

4

jadedctrl wrote

Yea, I think so. IMO, consequences always determine if an action was right or wrong. Of course, when deciding what to do, you probably should abstain from doing anything too terrible for what you predict to be the greater good— our judgement is flawed. But you know, we can only try our best.

1

SouthsideGrackles wrote

Does ends mean the result or the purpose? I can see an argument for the result justifying the means, but not the purpose. What people's goals are doesn't matter at all. What matters is what they do and what happens. Like look at Lenin. His purpose was communism, but the means he chose didn't have that result. Ironically in an attempt to accomplish his purpose he chose means which resulted in the opposite.

1

raindropq wrote

how could a result or the End, justify ? isn't the Goal (anarcha-communism, Love or Wildness) an abstract concept with no inherent power? while Purpose is perhaps synonymous with the process of actual meaning. I don't know enough about Lenin's chosen means but, he was a politician and dictator . i don't think communism was his actual purpose.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Ends means result or purpose, depending on context. When looking objectively at something that's said and done, it's looking at the result. When you're trying to decide the proper course of action, it means what you predict— your purpose. Everyone's judgment is flawed (like Lenin's). All we can do, really, is cautiously act on our judgment while trying as we can to keep it grounded in reality.

3

glokaya_kuzdra wrote

Emma Goldman said the ends justified the means wrt killing Frick, but she later recanted that view and said the means are reflected in the end. Kropotkin had a similar, but brief, focus on violent means to an end, but quickly reversed that view.

The end does not justify the means. This unwraps the philosophy of anarchism. This also puts us into a difficult spot with how to effect change. :-/

3

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

This also puts us into a difficult spot with how to effect change. :-/

The only answers compatible with revolution are that consequences determine whether something is moral and that ends justify means. Anything else makes actual change impossible

3

zombie_berkman wrote

what ends and what means?

3

surreal wrote

so it depends?

2

GaldraChevaliere wrote

The end should be the means. There are lines we shouldn't cross, or we become the dragon we're trying to slay. If we have genuine faith in what we say will help the world, then we should abide by its methods and codes.

2

raindropq wrote

i think it has to be the other way around, actually. - unless maybe the perceived end is an essencial priority, influential to action and what means justice but then, perception is a means. there is no end-justification in my mind; results are means to further potential action . anyways ; no

2

tamarack wrote (edited )

It depends on the ends and it depends on the means, but generally I'd have to say yes.

Whether we like it or not, whether we want to be or not, we are at war. The masters are waging war against us, and right now they're winning. In war, sometimes one has to do things that ordinarily wouldn't be okay in times of peace, but are nevertheless necessary if one wants to achieve victory. Gods willing, there will be a time for reflection, atonement, and healing; but that time is not now.

Either the masters' stranglehold over this planet ends, or we do. It's just that simple.

That doesn't necessarily mean that every action is justified, though. The whole point--our strategic objective in this war--is to end, permanently, the masters' ability to harm human beings. A person is justified in taking any action which both serves that objective and is tactically appropriate (i.e. the reward outweighs the risk and collateral damage is minimized). Violence for the sake of violence--to satisfy one's own bloodlust--is wrong. Taking pleasure in the act of violence itself, beyond the pleasure inherent in the achievement of the objective and in knowing that fewer human beings will be harmed as a result, is wrong. Violence done for the purpose of eliminating the masters' ability to do further harm to human beings is right.

So, for example, shooting a CEO Leon Czolzgolz style ... probably not justified. There's a high likelihood of being caught (the reward does not outweigh the risk, it is tactically stupid) and a high probability of collateral damage (i.e., of harming another human being). But the CEO ain't human, he doesn't factor into the morality of it.

1

amongstclouds wrote

"Ends justify the means," is arguably always used to try and legitimize something less than favorable. So yes and no.

1

gen3 wrote

Truth is a matter of perspective.

1

Random_Revolutionary wrote

Yes. If we set a certain number of criteria for our end goal, and only find means that tick what we consider the most important ones, at some point we'll need to choose to either temporarily abandon some goals, or progress horizontally.

If sacrificing the lesser goals is necessarily, I'm ready to do it. No omelette without breaking eggs.

1

leftous wrote

What if the end is bad depending on your perspective?

Good intentions do not absolve all consequences, and even then we never know what someone's subconscious motivations or desires are.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Motivation's irrelevant as to whether or not an action itself is moral. If someone means to save an old woman's life but somehow kills three other people, they meant well, but did something wrong. They'd be a good person who did something bad.
But a pretty objective way to tell if an ending is good or bad is by how much happiness/well-being it caused, minus any unhappiness/suffering.
Well-being is universally considered to be positive, and we all inherently act to prevent and avoid suffering.

2

selver wrote

You can't know what the outcome of something will be until you do it, life's too complex. Judging a person morally by nothing but outcome is incoherent and entirely based on chance.

1

jadedctrl wrote

You don't judge people by outcome, I didn't say that. :o
I said that you judge people by intent, and actions by outcome.
… like the guy-trying-to-save-an-old-woman-but-killed-three-people example I gave. “They'd be a good person who did something bad.“