A serious question

[Willystyle21]

How many of you believe in the old saying " The ends justify the means". I was listening to a song today and even though I have thought of this many times before, my opinion is that yeah sometimes they do. What does everybody think? Case in point (and no I don't mean go off on what I am saying here either, I'm just using it as something to go off of) I believe Pres. Bush using whatever info he had at the time (whatever it was truth, falacy, or just plain bad info), I believe he did a good thing by gettin Saddam out of power in Iraq.

[ERut]

Depends on the situation, in the case of Iraq, I think the end did justify the means.

[MiniMag84]

Our situation in Iraq is far from over, my friends. I'd wait on that one.

Personally, I don't think the end justified the means at all there.

[DJBacon06]

what song was it??...just curious:confused:

[Collegeboy]

I will refrain from talking about Iraq and just answer your question.

I believe in a little spin off of Machiavelli.

The end always justifies the means as long as you reach the end, but if you don't, then the end never justifies the means.

[1stdeadeye]

Life is not black or white. It is mostly grey. Your question falls into that grey area.

For example:

Is it okay to murder Hitler as a child to avoid WWII and his murderous rule? I would say yes.

but

Is it okay to break Starbase CGI's fingers so he can't post anymore and save AO's collective sanity? Probably not! (or is it?;) )

[Demobilized]

I think it certainly was. Bush decided to take action and the end of the whole deal is that a deadly and powerful leader is out of power. If that is ALL that comes from this war then I will be happy. Everything else is just icing on the cake for me, but we won't get into that here.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Is it okay to break Starbase CGI's fingers so he can't post anymore and save AO's collective sanity? Probably not! (or is it?;) )

*puts away his hammer and sighs*

[sps16]

more bad things would have come our way if we backed down against iraq

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


*puts away his hammer and sighs*

LOL!:D

[ERut]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The end always justifies the means as long as you reach the end, but if you don't, then the end never justifies the means.

I disagree. I think the answer varies with the situation. I do buy into the theory of proportional consequentialism, which is basically about choosing the lesser of two evils.

For example: was it ok to drop the A bomb on Japan during WWII, killing around 100,000 people instantly, if it prevented an invasion of Japan in which ten times that many soldiers would be killed? I'd say yeah.

[Collegeboy]

You can always once you have accomplished your goal, shape the ideas of the populace on what you have accompished from it.

A good book that deals with somthing similar to the idea above is "Soul of Battle" by Victor David Hanson.

[Jack_Dubious]

"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong." -Adolph Hitler


JDub

[nastymag]

i hate that saying with all my heart.
talking about " the ends justify the means"

its a phrase used by people to justify the horrilbe things they did to achieve what they wanted.

[Albinonewt]

THe ends justifying the means is definitly a grey area. Is it ok to murder every person affected with HIV in order to prevent the spread? I don't think so. Is it ok to perform tests on willing subjects that may cause them undue suffering order to cure the disease, I think it is.

In that example we have two different means but the same end, and I'm not willing to call both justified.

As for Iraq, I think Bush was justified in saying what he did. The British stood by their statement and continue to do so. I don't know what British intelligence knows, and I don't think CNN can claim to know either. The single report that our CIA had that discredited the claim that Saddam had purchased yellow cake uranium from Niger does not a false claim make. It merely means that one source was incorrect. I think it was a mistake by the Bush adminstration to give the story legs by apologizing and having everyone run around scared of it. I would have just said "British intelligence is convinced, and that's enough to convince me" Done, end of story.

[ERut]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You can always once you have accomplished your goal, shape the ideas of the populace on what you have accompished from it.

Even if you always could, that doesn't mean the end justifies the means in any situation.

[Willystyle21]

Look what I started. I was using the situation in Iraq as means of convaying a point. Didn't mean to start the whole conversation (or most of it) about Iraq. However I do believe in certain instances the ends do justify the means. Of course my being in the military and growing up in the south have givin me a different perspective on life than most in our world have. On a side note funny as hell how alot of people in Iraq are protesting our being there huh?

And DJ it's "in the end" by linkyn park. The topic just kinda popped back in my head when I heard the song.

And breaking peoples fingers so they can no longer leave annoying post's is not too terribla a thing. Demo pick your hammer back up and think about the part in Payback when Mel Gibson is strapped to the chair. Hurts thinking about it.

[Zumina]

Originally posted by Willystyle21
I believe he did a good thing by gettin Saddam out of power in Iraq.

and by good you mean a total collapse of their economy, the emergence of several new militant factions, political unrest, and a host of other repercussions? Then again, we did get those weapons of mass distruction, didn't we?

[Willystyle21]

Did we find the weapons yet? Well not from what we have heard on the news no. However did you see how we have found the 15 or so mig's buried in the sand less than 25 feet from one of the foward deployed camps in Iraq? Or did you hear about how we have found so many of the complexes and mobile units that made and deployed these said bioweapons? How big in square miles is Iraq anyhow? It's 171,599 square miles by the way. Do you have any idea how much or that can be used to bury something not to mention that reports has found a smugglers trail to Jordan. I'll bet money Saddam has been sending any number of "weapons" ( or anything else he was not suppose to have by the UN charter) into the desert to be buried or into a few of his neighboring countries.

No war is not the answer to the problem. But it WAS the best answer for the problem that was Saddam.Every educated person in the world knows that without a shadow of a doubt that if you attack america in a full on "military" attack ( not 9-11) that you will lose and you will lose badly. Look at history. America has NEVER lost a war. Vietnam was a joke, couldn't do what the top officials wanted because of the press and all of the fallout with anti war mongers that would have taken place. Put it this way did we really need another Hitler running around when we should learn from the mistakes of the past. There will always be war. It is man's blood. It is in his heart and mind to do what is right. How do you weigh human life one dies so that a hundred may live, hell yeah I will sacrifice my self for the good of humankind. We need to learn from what we have seen from years past and use this knowledge to fight for the future. In this I say yes the ends justify the means.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Zumina


and by good you mean a total collapse of their economy, the emergence of several new militant factions, political unrest, and a host of other repercussions? Then again, we did get those weapons of mass distruction, didn't we?

Collapse of their economy?

They didn't have one before.

The militant factions didn't exist because he killed everyone that didn't tow the line. That's way there are tens of thousands of dead people in mass graves, and we keep finding more

Political unrest? Where do you think it comes from? From the decades of oppression or being freed?

And I'm betting we did get the WMD and we're holding onto the list until it's complete. I may not be right, but I think what they're doing is just collecting all the evidence to release at once. Releasing news of a few canisters of this one week and a few shells of this the next would have a reduced affect because it's spread out. I think they're preparing a massive presentation where they present dozens, if not hundreds, of isolated incidents that when piled up is a huge deal

I can't promise that'll happen, but I think it will. In the next few weeks or months we'll see if I'm right. Now would be a good time to do it, since we're appealing the UN now would be a perfect time to drop the "bomb" as it were.

But, I might be wrong about that, we'll see.

[Miscue]

WMD found or not found... who cares. That's not the point.

http://www.etsell.com/kvi.htm

[Willystyle21]

Very nice Miscue, very nice indeed. I had a good laugh at that. Now back to my original question, In your own opinion, without refering to this insue in Iraq, do you think the ends justify the means?

[Konigballer]

I think the phrase "do the ends justify the means" implies different things and has different conotations for every person, religeon, country or any nkind of organization you can think of in any number of situations.

For some, realistically a VERY small few, life is only black and white. They will not set aside their honor, morality, principles, relationships, financial means, or their lives to get from point A to B ,in whatever situation they are in. If getting there means sacraficing any of these things to accomplish their goal then "the ends DONT justify the means".

For the most people, the world is GRAY...

For me, if I want to accomplish my goals I am prepared to enter into that gray area and do what I have too to "get the job done" and accomplish those goals. In that sense, for me, "the ends DO justify the means", as long as my sacrafice or cost was worth the reward. But there is a limit for me and for everyone. In some situations, the sacrafice I might have to make to win or suceed is to great. In that case, "the ends DONT justify the means".

Individuals and the societies they make up are inherently flexible when rationalizing "do the ends justify the means".

I'll use history as an example. In WW1, the United States military had around 115,000 soldiers killed. Our goal was the defeat of Imperial Germany and her allies, and we achieved that goal. For the government, the ends did justify the means in that conflict.

However, decades later durring the failed humanitarian effort in Somalia, the US military had 43 people killed in combat from 92-94. Our goal there, humanitarian in purpose but conducted militarily, was deemed not worth the expendeture of lives it would have eventually cost to accomplish that mission. In that scenario, for the government the ends did not justify the means.

It changes from situation to situation. The conflict in Iraq has yet to be decided so we can only speculate. So far the casualties we've taken have been deemed worth it to eventually acomplish the administration's goal. As of today, the government thinks that "the ends justify the means" in Iraq. But say, somehow in the coming months, our death toll hit one thousand instead of the current 287. I'd be willing to bet that, for americans, "the ends would NOT justify the means" and our ultimate goal would prove to be to great a cost.

It just depends on the situation.