Ends/Means

[tehpevis]

This question has been asked before on UC before it closed, but I pose the question to comrades here:

Do the Ends justify the Means, or do the Means justify the End?

[Nwoye]

false dilemma.

[Tatarin]

That can only be determined after the fact. If a revolution gets underway, kills 90% of the people in that country, and leaves the rest in a nazi-state, then the situation has obviously failed.

However, that logic can also be expanded into a whole new dimension, if you will. Billions upon billions have died the last, what, 10,000 years to get to this stage of human development, and we don't even know if there will ever be a better future. In that case, we would be well off as the primitivists wish - in the woods.

In any case, the revolution we all here work and hope for will be pushed by the great majority of the people. Will it be "okay"? Not by a long shot. People will most likely die, many of them will most likely be innocent, many others suffer unnecessary deaths. But that is what have happened in the past, and unfortunately, that is what will probably happen in the future.

In short, the means will justify the end on a level, but again, only the future can tell.

[mikelepore]

Everyone believes that the ends justify the means, for example, the small inconvenience now of brushing your teeth will avoid the major problem later of your teeth falling out. Since everyone believes this principle, the intended question is probably about the difficulty in choosing a method to know where to draw the line before deciding that some end is too small an achievement and some means is too high a price for it.

[tehpevis]

I'm thinking of the means and ends of, say, revolution, rather than cause and effect.

[yuon]

As an anarchist, I have to say that the means justify the ends. Anarchists have two claims to being correct in this matter.

Every attempt at bringing about true people power, worker's democracy etc., by authoritarian, "top-down" means, have failed. As such, we suggest that maybe it's time to try a bottom-up approach, actually giving power to everyone.

The other issue is the ethical one. Anarchists (well, the 'true' ones) claim to desire a free society, without oppression, hierarchy etc. We, however, also think that as a general principle, we should try and not be oppressive. To be oppressive, to use non-free means, even if the end is the most perfect utopia, is not in line with anarchist principles.

:cool:

[Absolut]

Personally, Im leaning towards the idea that the end reflects the means.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I endorse the views of Errico Malatesta on this subject:

http://libcom.org/library/ends-and-means-malatesta

The means that are appropriate are determined by the end that is desired.

[mel]

Everyone believes that the ends justify the means, for example, the small inconvenience now of brushing your teeth will avoid the major problem later of your teeth falling out. Since everyone believes this principle, the intended question is probably about the difficulty in choosing a method to know where to draw the line before deciding that some end is too small an achievement and some means is too high a price for it.

Brushing your teeth isn't an ethical dilemma. I think what is meant by "do the ends justify the means?" entails something different from future planning. If your desired end is simply to keep your teeth far into the future, then there are relatively few possible means to choose from. The means of brushing your teeth require no justification, unless those means are an ethical dilemma.

In the hypothetical scenario where you brushing your teeth requires that you deprive ten others of the means to feed themselves (they are sustaining themselves while they await supplies by eating the toothpaste, which is inexplicably rich in nutrients), then you have to ask whether the end of keeping your teeth justify the means.

I think the real question is whether you can use any positive end to justify harmful action, and this reaches to the heart of the original poster's question. Many of the revolutionaries here use that the ends (survival of the socialist state in russia) justify most, if not all, of Stalin's* excesses (industrialization drive, forced collectivization, great purges, etc.). This points to a failing in the consequentialist ethical model however, because this survival was relatively short lived, the "ends" are never an end, and the immediately forseeable consequences are not the only important consequences. The eventual ends in this case are a consequence of the means. Revisionism being the natural reaction against the means of the party under Stalin, and leading to the eventual dissolution of the socialist state.

I'm of the mind that the ends do, obviously merely follow from the means. The means, whatever they are, cannot be justified in and of thesmelves by the perceived end because the consequences of an action are further-reaching than immediately forseeable. That said, it does not follow from this that all violent means are unjustifiable, just that they cannot be justified in terms of their "ends", because "ends" are never an end.

*by "Stalin's" I am not suggesting that Stalin is personally responsible, it is shorthand for the USSR under Stalin's direction.

[Pierson's]

i think that it depends on what the ends are, and what means you want to use. obviously if the end is having a tasty dinner, kidnapping and holding for ransom a great chef is not an ethical means.

so, the person above who said "the line before deciding that some end is too small an achievement and some means is too high a price for it" is, to that extent, correct i guess. :blink:

but socialism? surely we should eb using decent means that are in line with our opinions!?

:confused:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, the ends justify the means. With one important observation: the "ends" are not just your intended purpose, but all the results of your actions.

In other words, if your actions have good results, then those actions were good and justified - whatever they were.

But if your actions have bad results, then they are NOT justified, no matter if your original intentions were good. Results justify the means, but good intentions don't.

[mikelepore]

I think there's also no ethical dilemma in taking Stalin as an example, because Stalin wasn't a case of using unpleasant means to reach a good result, but a case of using unpleasant means to reach an unpleasant result. I see no dilemma in that - I simply reject such a process entirely, both the ends and the means.

[mikelepore]

In having a socialist revolution, the ethical "harm" is that the deposed ruling class will be sad (for a little while) because they will have to begin working (very short work hours) like everyone else, the poor babies. By paying this small price, hundreds of critical social problems will be solved, some of them bearing on human survival itself. Here's the weighing of the ends and means: enormous benefit to the human race, minor inconvenience to a few people. Benefits as great as I can imagine, and disbenefits as small as I can imagine. To me that's a no-brainer. No dilemma at all.