I think that "the ends DEFINES the means." That the question, "does the ends justify the means?" implies an

Question

answer that does not even exist if the ends desired is freedom. Would you care to comment?

edit: Using the word "justifies" permits the rationalization. Saying "defines" says rationalization won't work to get to the desired end. Am I right?

Edit: by breaking out of jail, you are saying that your ends have defined the means you will use. Your problem becomes that we have already defined the means and level of force we are willing to use to reach our defined end, you back in jail.

Edit: Making money (the end) by making war (the means) Is just a discussion of is it justified? I am saying that if you go to war to make money you may achieve the end you desire, money, but cannot achieve an end that involves the respect, support, or obedience of people whose end goal is freedom and maybe even peace. You'll have the money and have to spend it all on guards, one of whom will probably cut your throat in your sleep and take the money. And the rest of us won't care.

Edit: Enlighten me about the rules. I am saying that my experience provides a rule of thumb, that in the real world certain actions preclude reaching certain results. You can't get there from here.

Edit: You are saying that in an infinitely complex universe, there may be a means that will get to any desired ends. I'll grant you that, I do not know everything. But, of all the means of achieving results I know of, from persuasion to bribery to threats to violence, certain ones always lead to certain ends, for instance personal power and not to others, especially as much freedom as possible for as many people as possible. What I am proposing is that the ends defines the means is a valid rule of thumb that I can find no exception for in the real world.

I think Ben and I were on the same track but he never said it quite the way I'm saying it.

Edit: I'm saying that in the real world, it is not actually a moral question, it is a problem in navigation. This misperception of the problem is what has permitted so much rationalization and evil to be done in the name of good. The end, if you will, of "cultural unity" can be used to "justify" the means of genocide to reach it. The error occurs when people think they will have cultural unity along with freedom and peace for their chosen people. Those are actually three separate ends and two of them are excluded from the other by the means chosen to achieve it.

edit: thank you

Edit: and in the old days, maps used to say "Here there be dragons" in the unexplored territory. I am saying that I have discovered a rule of thumb, a lodestone, that, while it does not guarantee reaching a specific objective in the unknown wilderness, does reject paths that are certain to lead elsewhere than desired.

Answer 1

Intended or not, the means usually redefine the ends, and the ends are usually unintended consequences.

Examples would be the French Revolution and LBJ's War on Poverty --- both accomplished the exact opposite of what they originally attempted.

The road to Hell is always the one paved in gold.

Answer 2

By your logic, the "end"of cultural unity could be saidtoadequately define the "means"--the Holocaust--theNazisused to try to create their vision of cultural/racial purity.

Try again. Your statementsimply restates the "end justifies the means" fallacy. Also--if, as you say, the end is freedom, the means do exist--the best example being the constitution of the United States.

The point of the whole philosophical issue involved is not one of acutal "means" but a moral question: under what circumstances are what actions acceptable. For example--the end of having a nice car is fine--but if the means to gt itis to kill people while robbing a bank, then that is NOT jsutified by the end (the new car). If, on the other hand, you can savean innocent person only by killing thae thug attacking the victim, then most would agree the end does justify the means (taking a life).

What most thinkers have concluded is implied by the examples I gave: there is no absolute answer to the question. The context has to be taken into account--some ends justify (ordefine, ifyou prefer) extreme means--others do not.

Answer 3

To each his own, but I think that's a completely different statment. I also think your revision makes assumptions.

Yours seems to be saying that your desired outcome defines what you will do. That's not really saying much. Also, the statement contains a flawed asumption. The 'The end DEFINES the means' suggests all possible "means" are known which is almost never true. There would always be an alternative "means" that goes unconsidered.

The question of "does the ends justify the means" is a question of the methods that result in an outcome. When used as a statement instead of a question, "The ends justify the means", it reflects the thinking that an outcome can make otherwise unacceptable/incorrect actions be acceptable in hindsight.

Perhaps I just missed what you were going for, but that's what I got from it.

Answer 4

"The end justifies the means". Means that if you have a war that kills millions of people and the war makes it possible for billionaires to have more billions it is a righteous cause and will be sanctioned by the pope in exchange for some gold to help any enemy of Isreal. Sanction by the pope means that young men and women will be more likely to join the forces as a righteous cause. The real cause is usually camoflaged as something good. When in fact it is a trick for money and power.

Answer 5

Carmen Avena dose make a point minus the drama. it looks like Marxism is on the rise in our own home while its burning our freedoms in smoke until we have nothing left. the constitution is being attacked, take the 2nd amendment for example. the basics of that amendment is to offer the people the ability of protection both the military and civilians. I understand well why guns are greatly abused and some people should simply not have them, but that dose not excused the government to take away protection away from the people and saying that its for "the safety of the country". we need to be protected from the government, not by the government because they will abuse power and appoint us as its subjects. we are not subjects, we are individuals with a mind.

Answer 6

No, not at all.
If freedom is the end result of breaking out of jail, then the means aren't justified by the end. If doing your time and EARNING that freedom, then the means ARE justified.

Answer 7

There is an interpretation problem here; there are people who make the rules, people who follow the rules and people who design the rules so they can break them.

It's a little more complicated than that

Answer 8

"The end justifies the means" is validation of Ben Franklin's statement of "to educate a man in mind but not in morals is to create a menace to society"

Answer 9

That's just a phrase that f'd up people use to justify the f'd up things they do....a "rationalization".

Answer 10

you bet ye.