Does the end justify the means?

[GPIRS88]

Well even if this Tibet fad is over and no one seems to care about the issue I just want to know what you guys think

Every cause, every belief and every call for action whether its helping the less fortunate, stopping a war or saving the environment all have people within these groups with a positive (hopefully) objective.

But do the means to achieve these objectives matter to you as an individual? if you believed your cause was just would you accomplish your goals through any means no matter how dishonest or unethical?

and how would you handle and come to terms with these actions?

the reason why i bring this up is because in previous threads i ve made my position clear that I dont believe the Free Tibet movement is a justifiable cause that could accomplish such a huge objective of liberating a chunk of China. And if this was an issue of Human Rights than North Korea should be in the cross hair of world opinion.

However the events that have unfolded in South Korea recently has been very interesting to follow.

YouTube - Chinese thugs Attack Pro Tibet: Outrage Torch Relay in Korea

^Nationalist attacking Tibetan protesters who many of them (korean ethnically) are trying to change China's policy of sending North Korean defectors back to their oppressive dictatorship to suffer in a labor camp as punishment for escaping their Great Leader (or worse)

YouTube - 2008 Conflicts in Seoul, the Truth and Lies

^ again at the same time we see evidence of media bias and blur in the story of how these events unfolded with critics laying out the evidence and charging Tibetan protesters with framing students and sending out a bad P.R. message.

Could it be propaganda? maybe? it wouldnt be surprising or the first time. But based on the actions of these Tibetan protesters charging and attacking torch barriers, it wouldnt be surprising if these allegations turned out to be true either.

What do you guys think?

[Thanatos]

Consider the American Civil War. States near the Mason-Dixon line like Kentucky were waffling about whether they should support the North or the South, because they were close to the North yet some of the people there held slaves.

Lincoln pushed them over to the North's side by telling them it wasn't about slavery and that they'd get to keep the slaves. He also wrote speeches expressing some very racist attitudes to ensure everyone believed he was not going to free the slaves, right up until he did.

The North would probably have lost without the support of the border states. An act of betrayal and deception was necessary.

This strategy is risky. I cannot tell from the news reports whether Tibetans staged attacks or not, but for the sake of argument suppose they did. It would make them look horrible; people like to think that the rules are observed by their heroes and when they are not people get mad.

In the real world there are no rules and not that many heroes. You do what you think is right to the best of your ability to judge and just sort of muddle through life. If you need to lie to a few people to save a lot of people and think you can get away with it then I'd say that's an easy choice.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Lincoln and the republicans never wanted to stage a direct assault on southern slavery in the beginning, though Lincoln's entire handling of the war, depending if you think the consequences were worth it, it a good example, I agree.

[Walrus]

I don’t think there is a definite answer to that one, it is a saying that is sometimes used to justify questionable acts; it would depend on the circumstances.

[Osborn F Enready]

No, the end never justifies the means.

That lie is usually told to people who have to give up something in the process of "the means"......

[Domino]

Ends and means cannot justify one another. Each must be good and right in its own terms.

Admittedly, that is not always possible, but wrongdoing should be acknowledged, owned, and consequences accepted, not "justified" through rhetorical tricks or emotional appeals.

Osborn F Enready said it well, but I thought I should give the more thorough answer :)

[Osborn F Enready]

Good post Domino and I agree yours is more thorough. I was a bit angry and feeling a bit lazy this morning.... toothache.....

[grandpa]

The means will determine the ends.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa The means will determine the ends.

The ends justify the means, however, the darker the means, the more tainted the ends are.

[Morality Games]

The means is the ultimate end of life. Activities and processes are more instrumental to making life meaningful than outcomes and products. The 'end' is just the resting spot from one goal to the next, and strong personalities are usually eager to begin their next adventure, so they don't remain static for long. Hence, 'means to ends' morality of any type, be it 'the end doesn't justify the means' or the 'end justifies the means', are off basis. That is why it is inappropriate to frame a question like, "do the ends justify the means?", at least in a broad sense, as if the end were important in any respect other than being a compass.

Anyway, people typically don't consider their methods dishonest or unethical -- dishonest people generally conceal their dishonesty from themselves or ignore its ramifications so that it doesn't matter to them, and 'ethics', or, "What is the best way to live life and why?" is, like aesthetic judgments of beauty, in the eye of the beholder. People will always have different estimations of 'what ought to be done'.

[Dagda]

Its all about democracy(or utalitarian ethics) the greatest good for the greatest number.
If the end is good then the means are justifiable. The 2nd World war is a good example, the allies began the bloodiest war in history to bring down Hitler. The means wasn't nice but it stoped the Nazis from dominating Europe.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Dagda Its all about democracy(or utalitarian ethics) the greatest good for the greatest number. If the end is good then the means are justifiable. The 2nd World war is a good example, the allies began the bloodiest war in history to bring down Hitler. The means wasn't nice but it stoped the Nazis from dominating Europe.

No we went to war because our elite did not want to deal with an overly powerful German elite, not to safeguard the greatest deal of good for the greatest number of people. And of course the declaration of war against Germany insured the holocaust and handed half of europe to an even worse man.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Simonius No we went to war because our elite did not want to deal with an overly powerful German elite, not to safeguard the greatest deal of good for the greatest number of people. And of course the declaration of war against Germany insured the holocaust and handed half of europe to an even worse man.

Hitler seems to have been eager for general war. There's a lot of attention focused
on the Jewish Holocaust, but he was far from only targeting Jews.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Simonius No we went to war because our elite did not want to deal with an overly powerful German elite, not to safeguard the greatest deal of good for the greatest number of people. And of course the declaration of war against Germany insured the holocaust and handed half of europe to an even worse man.

I can deal with some critical viewing of the allies, but Hitler was going to attack france and Britain whether they liked it or not. He might have prefered to take out the "inferior" slavs to provide lebensraum to attacking the supposedly more aryan french and British, but Hitler's entire set up of power was dependant on conquest. He had devoted the entire nation to war, and if Gernmany did not conquer it would have soon ended up back in even further depression. If anything, WWII was fought because The British and French finally got the message when the whermacht devoured Poland like a ravenous dog, and because the U.S. and Soviets were forced into it. It is, however, the closest thing to a just argument for a war I can think of in history.

[Simonius]

Quote by: grandpa Hitler seems to have been eager for general war. There's a lot of attention focused on the Jewish Holocaust, but he was far from only targeting Jews. Grandpa h.

Yes, but the general war he seemed eager for was a massive push against the USSR, in regards to Britain he desired nothing but peace (but was of course unwilling to do anything to achieve it).

[Simonius]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I can deal with some critical viewing of the allies, but Hitler was going to attack france and Britain whether they liked it or not.

Was he? Until Poland both nations had bent over backwards for him. If anything they had helped him expand his borders, throughout the war Hitler actively sought peace with Britain.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary He might have prefered to take out the "inferior" slavs to provide lebensraum to attacking the supposedly more aryan french and British, but Hitler's entire set up of power was dependant on conquest.

Conquest of areas with much needed natural resources, Russia yes... France not so much.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary He had devoted the entire nation to war, and if Gernmany did not conquer it would have soon ended up back in even further depression. If anything, WWII was fought because The British and French finally got the message when the whermacht devoured Poland like a ravenous dog, and because the U.S. and Soviets were forced into it. It is, however, the closest thing to a just argument for a war I can think of in history.

We did not go to war to obtain justice for Poland, we know this because we had little problem with the annextion of Czecheslovakia nor with Russia's invasion of Poland. There may have been a just argument of war, but it is not the reason why we went to war. Britain and France declared war on Germany because to not was to accept a Europe headed by Germany.

If they had again bottled it and left Poland to its fate it is likely that we would now be praising Hitler for having saved Europe from the Communists.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Conquest of areas with much needed natural resources, Russia yes... France not so much.

French empire, yes, and France was never going to let the balance of power switch so favorably to it's rival arguably since Charlemagne died, so France would have been necessary to conquer anyway. Same goes for Britain, eventually, he'd have to force them to capitulate or to invade.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary French empire, yes,.

Upon which he had no designs, the possession of which being contrary to his ideology.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary and France was never going to let the balance of power switch so favorably to it's rival arguably since Charlemagne died, so France would have been necessary to conquer anyway. Same goes for Britain, eventually, he'd have to force them to capitulate or to invade.

But, assuming their aquiesance, which nearly occured in the case of Britain he would have had no need to attack. He may very well have taken out France just because he could, but in regards to Britain it would seem that he genuinely desired peace, not a peace of equals but peace nonetheless.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Hitler's ideaology was German Nationalism, period. I don't particularly recall Hitler having a problem with imperialism, and even if he did, he was perfectly flexible on is tenets in his rise to power.

If you really think a nation like Britain would long tolerate a vassalship to Hitler, you have a far more bleak view of the country's character than I do.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Hitler's ideaology was German Nationalism, period. I don't particularly recall Hitler having a problem with imperialism, and even if he did, he was perfectly flexible on is tenets in his rise to power. If you really think a nation like Britain would long tolerate a vassalship to Hitler, you have a far more bleak view of the country's character than I do.

He was quite clear in his views on a small racial elite holding power over an overseas empire consisting of vast numbers of inferior beings... that is what he viewed such Empires as and he did not like it one bit.

Of course Britain would have tolerated vassalship to Hitler, we very nearly did, and after the war we tolerated vassalship to America. Its just politics!