IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Do The Ends Justify The Means?, deep thought on the question
Dataika
post Jan 21 2004, 01:11 PM
Post #16


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



The question "Do the ends justify the means?" Is really dependent on the situation. For example, to stop a mass murderer would you rather kill innocent person on the road to stopping HIM from killing another 4 innocent people? I think we would all agree.

I think the ends DO sometimes and SOMETIMES they DON'T. It really depends ont he circumstance. For instance, one circumstance is the atomic Bombing of Japan by America. But you have to look at the problem and examine all possible ways of solving it. If one of the ends happen to be a more violent approach, then so be it if it is the BEST way of solving it.

You shouldn't FEAR Violence anymore than someone should FEAR peace.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Jan 22 2004, 01:40 AM
Post #17


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (Dataika @ Jan 22 2004, 10:11 AM)
I think the ends DO sometimes and SOMETIMES they DON'T. It really depends ont he circumstance. For instance, one circumstance is the atomic Bombing of Japan by America. But you have to look at the problem and examine all possible ways of solving it. If one of the ends happen to be a more violent approach, then so be it if it is the BEST way of solving it.

You shouldn't FEAR Violence anymore than someone should FEAR peace.

hey! would u like to elaborate more on that point? smile.gif


also...no i wouldnt agree on that killing one person on the road, to save 4 others...what if that person on the road was my sister or brother, mother, loved one...? mad.gif


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 22 2004, 08:10 PM
Post #18


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Sarah @ Jan 22 2004, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE (Dataika @ Jan 22 2004, 10:11 AM)
I think the ends DO sometimes and SOMETIMES they DON'T.  It really depends ont he circumstance.  For instance, one circumstance is the atomic Bombing of Japan by America.  But you have to look at the problem and examine all possible ways of solving it.  If one of the ends happen to be a more violent approach, then so be it if it is the BEST way of solving it. 

You shouldn't FEAR Violence anymore than someone should FEAR peace.

hey! would u like to elaborate more on that point? smile.gif


also...no i wouldnt agree on that killing one person on the road, to save 4 others...what if that person on the road was my sister or brother, mother, loved one...? mad.gif

also...no i wouldnt agree on that killing one person on the road, to save 4 others...what if that person on the road was my sister or brother, mother, loved one...? mad.gif

And the 4 other people are someone's mother/sister/brother/family member, except there would be 4 of them. You wouldn't think it would be better to sacrifice your own to save the lives of 4 different people?

What point are you saying I should expand on?


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Jan 22 2004, 08:40 PM
Post #19


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



i wouldnt sacrifice my father, so other 4 ppl can get their fathers...... unsure.gif

QUOTE
I think the ends DO sometimes and SOMETIMES they DON'T. It really depends ont he circumstance. For instance, one circumstance is the atomic Bombing of Japan by America. But you have to look at the problem and examine all possible ways of solving it. If one of the ends happen to be a more violent approach, then so be it if it is the BEST way of solving it.


this is the point i didnt get, u mean that bombing all those ppl in japan was the only solution to end world warII?


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 23 2004, 03:17 PM
Post #20


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Sarah @ Jan 23 2004, 04:40 AM)
i wouldnt sacrifice my father, so other 4 ppl can get their fathers...... unsure.gif

QUOTE
I think the ends DO sometimes and SOMETIMES they DON'T. It really depends ont he circumstance. For instance, one circumstance is the atomic Bombing of Japan by America. But you have to look at the problem and examine all possible ways of solving it. If one of the ends happen to be a more violent approach, then so be it if it is the BEST way of solving it.


this is the point i didnt get, u mean that bombing all those ppl in japan was the only solution to end world warII?

If you wouldn't sacrifice your father so that your fellow man could keep theirs, then you have some sort of selfish surperiority complex.

this is the point i didnt get, u mean that bombing all those ppl in japan was the only solution to end world warII?

No, I meant to use that as a reason to be against extremes when there are other options available. Clearly, in the bombing of Japan in WWII, there were other alternatives.

This post has been edited by Dataika: Jan 23 2004, 03:17 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Jan 23 2004, 08:04 PM
Post #21


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (Dataika @ Jan 24 2004, 12:17 PM)
If you wouldn't sacrifice your father so that your fellow man could keep theirs, then you have some sort of selfish surperiority complex.



laugh.gif because i disagreed with u, and hypothetically chose to save my father?

No. smile.gif

meh mellow.gif


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 24 2004, 06:53 PM
Post #22


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Sarah @ Jan 24 2004, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (Dataika @ Jan 24 2004, 12:17 PM)
If you wouldn't sacrifice your father so that your fellow man could keep theirs, then you have some sort of selfish surperiority complex.



laugh.gif because i disagreed with u, and hypothetically chose to save my father?

No. smile.gif

meh mellow.gif

No because you chose to keep your own father at the expense of 4 other people losing theirs. That's putting yourself before the needs of others, and it's selfish. I said surperiority complex because you feel that your father (just because he is YOUR father) is more important than FOUR other people's father's/brothers/uncles.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Jan 24 2004, 09:18 PM
Post #23


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (Dataika @ Jan 25 2004, 03:53 PM)
No because you chose to keep your own father at the expense of 4 other people losing theirs. That's putting yourself before the needs of others, and it's selfish. I said surperiority complex because you feel that your father (just because he is YOUR father) is more important than FOUR other people's father's/brothers/uncles.

yes i would definately keep my father...and yes my father is more important to me than other men who arent my fathers... not because he's more human than them, but because he's my father,and they arent...im not actually sure i can name anyone i know, who would do any different... huh.gif in fact, even in other animal species, animals choose to save their parents and siblings at the expense of other animals, it's almost natural reaction.


i personally wouldnt describe myself as selfish, and i certainly dont perceive myself as superior to others, but if u feel comfortable throwing labels around, good for u smile.gif


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 24 2004, 10:11 PM
Post #24


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Sarah @ Jan 25 2004, 05:18 AM)
QUOTE (Dataika @ Jan 25 2004, 03:53 PM)
No because you chose to keep your own father at the expense of 4 other people losing theirs.  That's putting yourself before the needs of others, and it's selfish.  I said surperiority complex because you feel that your father (just because he is YOUR father) is more important than FOUR other people's father's/brothers/uncles.

yes i would definately keep my father...and yes my father is more important to me than other men who arent my fathers... not because he's more human than them, but because he's my father,and they arent...im not actually sure i can name anyone i know, who would do any different... huh.gif in fact, even in other animal species, animals choose to save their parents and siblings at the expense of other animals, it's almost natural reaction.


i personally wouldnt describe myself as selfish, and i certainly dont perceive myself as superior to others, but if u feel comfortable throwing labels around, good for u smile.gif

yes i would definately keep my father...and yes my father is more important to me than other men who arent my fathers... not because he's more human than them, but because he's my father,and they arent...im not actually sure i can name anyone i know, who would do any different... in fact, even in other animal species, animals choose to save their parents and siblings at the expense of other animals, it's almost natural reaction.

And you encourage this type of behavior? You are a walking endorsement for capitalism. It's YOUR money, it's YOUR wealth, it's YOUR food, it's YOUR FATHER, why sacrifice anything for the good of the world? It's YOURS right?

i personally wouldnt describe myself as selfish, and i certainly dont perceive myself as superior to others, but if u feel comfortable throwing labels around, good for u

I'm not needlessly "throwing labels" around. I was merely going by your sentiments and your statements. You are saying your father deserves to live over the lives of 4 other innocent fathers simply because, he's YOUR father. What about that isn't selfish? You want your father to live because he's yours, your needs are being put over others, especially the 4 other fathers who will lose their lives as a result of the decision.

Whether or not your selfish sentiments are understandable is NOT the issue here. What IS the issue is that it's selfish, none the less. Selfishness is when you put your own comfort/happiness at the expense of other people, which is DEFINATELY what is happening here.

This post has been edited by Dataika: Jan 24 2004, 10:17 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Jan 25 2004, 09:56 AM
Post #25


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



That's a stupid question anyway (would you kill one innocent person to save four others). You most likely wouldn't have to kill an innocent person to save the rest. but here's an example that I'll leave you to think about. During the Warsaw Ghetto Upring, a very young child (I think he was somewhere around ten) was captured by german soldiers and forced to betray his peoples bunker. Soon afterward he was recaptured by jewish ghetto fighters. The leader of the group found out what he did and ordered his fighters to execute the boy. After repeated refusals to kill the child, the commander personally took the child up to the top of a building and threw him over the edge. The justafication for this was that he might betray them again. Who would you say was right, the fighters who refused to hurt the boy, or the commander who was determined to kill him?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 25 2004, 12:33 PM
Post #26


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 25 2004, 05:56 PM)
The justafication for this was that he might betray them again. Who would you say was right, the fighters who refused to hurt the boy, or the commander who was determined to kill him?

Exactly Comrade. The question is never universal, there is no 100% answer. Sometimes the ends do, and sometimes they don't.

Like your illustration of the child, reason and consciousness must come into play at some point.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Jan 25 2004, 10:26 PM
Post #27


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (Dataika @ Jan 25 2004, 07:11 PM)
And you encourage this type of behavior? You are a walking endorsement for capitalism. It's YOUR money, it's YOUR wealth, it's YOUR food, it's YOUR FATHER, why sacrifice anything for the good of the world? It's YOURS right?

I'm not needlessly "throwing labels" around. I was merely going by your sentiments and your statements. You are saying your father deserves to live over the lives of 4 other innocent fathers simply because, he's YOUR father. What about that isn't selfish? You want your father to live because he's yours, your needs are being put over others, especially the 4 other fathers who will lose their lives as a result of the decision.

Whether or not your selfish sentiments are understandable is NOT the issue here. What IS the issue is that it's selfish, none the less. Selfishness is when you put your own comfort/happiness at the expense of other people, which is DEFINATELY what is happening here.

i wouldnt juxtapose my father, or other human beings with material possesions, like money and the like, but again if u feel comfortable doing that...then by all means smile.gif

i'm not sure u fully understand me, but personally i dont care so i wont care to explain any further, u labelling somone selfish or whatever, good for u!


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 26 2004, 08:08 AM
Post #28


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Sarah @ Jan 26 2004, 06:26 AM)
QUOTE (Dataika @ Jan 25 2004, 07:11 PM)
And you encourage this type of behavior?  You are a walking endorsement for capitalism.  It's YOUR money, it's YOUR wealth, it's YOUR food, it's YOUR FATHER, why sacrifice anything for the good of the world?  It's YOURS right?

I'm not needlessly "throwing labels" around.  I was merely going by your sentiments and your statements.  You are saying your father deserves to live over the lives of 4 other innocent fathers simply because, he's YOUR father.  What about that isn't selfish?  You want your father to live because he's yours, your needs are being put over others, especially the 4 other fathers who will lose their lives as a result of the decision.

Whether or not your selfish sentiments are understandable is NOT the issue here.  What IS the issue is that it's selfish, none the less.  Selfishness is when you put your own comfort/happiness at the expense of other people, which is DEFINATELY what is happening here.

i wouldnt juxtapose my father, or other human beings with material possesions, like money and the like, but again if u feel comfortable doing that...then by all means smile.gif

i'm not sure u fully understand me, but personally i dont care so i wont care to explain any further, u labelling somone selfish or whatever, good for u!

i'm not sure u fully understand me, but personally i dont care so i wont care to explain any further, u labelling somone selfish or whatever, good for u!

Translation, "I'm selfish, the dictionary proves I am." Thanks for proving my point. Again, I understand your selfish sentiments, but that's not the issue here. What IS the issue is whether or not it's selfish in itself, which it is. You aren't sacrifcing your father because he's YOUR father, YOUR needs/wants are being put before the needs of four other innocent people. You are being selfish. Whether or not it's right should be judged by the reader.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Jan 26 2004, 09:18 AM
Post #29


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



The question "do the ends justify the means" tends to leave out the indisputible fact about these two. The ends are created by the means, the means completly effect the ends so that poor means basically mean a poor end. If it starts with chaos, it ends with chaos. An example of this is the French Revolution, where a potentially good cause became completly distorted by the massacres used to subdue counter revolutionaries. The result of this kind of paranoia was more discontent, which resulted in more massacres to eliminate the "enemies" of the revolution, and this became a vicious cycle. It was not until Napolean overthrew the revolution and established his government that the massacres stopped. It's alot more detailed than that, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The point is, because the revolutionary commities used such brutal and paranoid methods to quell what they considered to be threats, the people found themselves still under the control of tyrants and they were forced to eliminate them. The means of protecting the revolution became the end of the revolution. And that's true in several ways, it made the revolution what it was, and it brought on the end of that period of the revolution. In every way the means made the ends. If your means of rulership is slavery, than your rulership essentialy is slavery (for the people that is). That's why I believe that if you want a peacful end, you will need as peacful a means as you can afford. If tyranny is the only way to keep your power, than you are a tyrant. It seems so simple to me, but you'll probably all disagree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zapatista
post Jan 26 2004, 08:16 PM
Post #30


är du också likgiltig?
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,819
Joined: 29-January 03
From: Salina Cruz, Oaxaca
Member No.: 188



I'm kind of with Dataika on this one.. well, cept for the name calling and crap.. no need for all that.. but, Ok.. Maybe father is a bad example.. Would you sacrifice yourself for the greater good?? I would. ermm.gif


--------------------
Hey we got the PMA. Hey we got the PMA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2020 - 01:46 PM