Did the ends justify the means?

Question

Iraq seems to be coming into alignment with the initial policy and procedures employed/deployed into that arena. This example is a great one for explaining what that saying means and asking if a valid case can be made for this case study in particular.

FAULT #1. I know that this "involvement/quagmire" is very emotional for many. Yet, I DID NOT! indicate one way or the other if I was taking sides in this Q. Those who A'd as though I did are deluded.

FAULT #2-"The ends never justify the means." Only a complete idiot would adopt this stance, which at least two A's did. If it were me who had posted such a mindless blunder, I would shamefully and apologetically remove the A.

It was A6 & A7 which made the biggest and most foolish logical blunder by emphatically holding that the ends never justify the means. You should consider yourselves lucky that you still have a chance to delete this innapropriate and completely stupid response, thus leaving other A's in the 6 & 7 position so that you're unworthy a$$es can fade into the woodwork of Y/A.

Answer 1

You have to break a few eggs to get an omlette - which is a sympathetic rendition of "the ends justify the means". This is a much deeper issue than simply asking if unpleasantness or even killing or war is justified by some attempted or achieved goal - it is about using immorality to attain morality. THAT is the rub. Killing and war is not inherently immoral - we casually kill billions of life forms every day with our Lysol spray and so on - which I don't oppose - and those who prey on the rest of society - fack 'em - But there is an issue of hypocrasy in using say, the mafia, to take out a corrupt politician. The morality of a thing is lowered to the extent that it contains immoral segments.

Answer 2

Words like policy/procedure/valid mean nothing to people in Iraq.
Is spending billions of tax dollars and losing thousands of American lives as a result of retaliating on a hunch justified becuase some news report said that Iraq is "coming into alignment with policy and procedures"?

You must not know about war. Or you're a person that would never have to go because of your position in society.

Either way, it is people like you who continue to try and outweigh a million negative aspects of war by introducing some vague *** description about a model policy that has been implemented and how it is going to change Iraq.

Do you think that everyone in the United States modifies their behavior every time the Supreme Court hands down a decision?

Answer 3

In some cases.

Likely faulty intel re Iraqi wmd, and inordinate influence by Israeli interests in U.S. foreign policy decisions are not necessarily justifying by the spending of $1-2 trillion, the American and Iraqi lives lost and harmed, infrastructure harmed, more jihadis generated per American invasion, increase of Iranian influence in Iraq, etc., by changing a bad regime to a less-bad government. However, Bush 43's presidency seems to rise or fall based upon whether Iraq becomes a more democratic, prosperous state, post-invasion.

Alternate uses of the $1-2 trillion, personnel, etc., may make the "Well, it is a better government" argument the lesser of two goods. This is likely to be the argument used against any justification of any nation-building success the U.S. enjoys in post-invasion Iraq.

regards,

j.

Answer 4

the means that iraq used were going to war losing lives to get a democratic process and different leadership was it all worth time time wil tell, vietnam for instance and korea were they worth it was a point made or not. in places where you have refugees from these countries people who fled at these times i believe they may have been happier living in the old ways rather than now living in camps where they are trewted as prisoners to be kept away from society

Answer 5

While things may be coming into focus now and calming down, I don't think the best strategy was used. Heck, I don't even feel like one of the top 10 options was used. Too many people died that didn't need to.

Answer 6

Sorry but it is just not that easy, it depends on the ends and of course the means, I am not about to tell anybody that there is a definitive answer. And I am not dodging the issue.

Answer 7

The ends NEVER justify the means.

Ever. In any situation.

The very suggestion that the ends justify the means implies destruction of one's true self and offers defense of one's actions because ". . . it all turned out for the best."

The best for whom?

Answer 8

The ends never justify the means.

The USA has now shown itself to be an untrustworthy nation.

Answer 9

It would mean endless hairsplitting studies and books to be written on the subject.

Answer 10

methinks you have no inkling of reality.