Ends and Means - which justifies which?

[anti machine]

it has become apparent to me that morality, as the pragmatist John Dewey once said, it directly related to the consequences thereof. Morality can be said to be definied by its consequence, its 'ends'. Immorality does not run rampant, says Dewey, not because morality is natural, as despots and their followers have made quite apparent, but because man considers the consequences of what society deems an amoral action.

This analysis can, in some ways, be linked to Marxist revolution when discussing ends and means. Trotsky was a proponent of the 16th century Jesuit maxim, Machiavellen as it was, that the ends justify the means. He went so far as to say that morality is the tool of the petty bourgeousie to subjugate the masses and maintain power. "The theory of eternal morals can in nowise survive without God."

I am curious as to your positions concerning morality, ends and means, and the like.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The theory of eternal morals can in nowise survive without God.

I am not a Trotskyist, but this is true. By 'eternal morals', I believe he means morals that hold truth no matter what the situation, and this sort of morality is only possible with a 'godly' figure to uphold an 'eternal code of morals'.

on the subject of ends and means, neither justifies the other. It would be silly to say that the means justifies the ends, but depending on the means, it may be justified by the ends.

[anti machine]

"depending on the means"

therefore an ethical code is present in your mind. IS there a difference between killing on the battlefield and killing a hostage, if it would bring about the desired ends? You would most probably advocate that murder of an unarmed civilian is unjustifed. Yes? Then this belief coinsides with eternal morals, which have been agreed upon to have no place here without God.

The means are justified if they are employed in such a way that will render the end.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from anti machine on 4:52 pm on June 3, 2003
"depending on the means"

therefore an ethical code is present in your mind. IS there a difference between killing on the battlefield and killing a hostage, if it would bring about the desired ends? You would most probably advocate that murder of an unarmed civilian is unjustifed. Yes? Then this belief coinsides with eternal morals, which have been agreed upon to have no place here without God.

The means are justified if they are employed in such a way that will render the end.

yes, I have some morals, but none are eternal. Would the killing of am innocent civilian be immoral, most likely, but not necessarily, and definetely not because of a god. it's not an eternal moral because it is morality derived from an educated observation of the situation, not an unbreakable set of superstitions.
let me rephrase the means/ends thing. the ends only justifies the means if the ends are desirable and the means moraly humanitarian. where is the morality going to be derived from? public opinion, i say, not religion.

[redstar2000]

Immorality does not run rampant, says Dewey, not because morality is natural, as despots and their followers have made quite apparent, but because man considers the consequences of what society deems an amoral action.

I think a Marxist would put a "class-based" bias on the word "consequences". That is, what any given class society deems "an amoral act" depends on what the ruling class of that society defines as an act with unpleasant consequences as far as its own class interests are concerned.

But the core of the problem, in my view, is what has lately been designated as "the law of unintended consequences".

I think Trotsky was right as far as he went...but what he missed were the consequences that could possibly have been anticipated but which were never intended.

Consider the "secret police" discussion in the Politics forum; what happens to the mind-sets of people who become "secret police"? How long does it take before they begin to perceive themselves as "the supreme guardians of the revolution" answerable to no one? How long until they think they should be the rulers themselves?

So what began as a "moral" act to defend the revolution from its enemies turns out to actually hasten the ultimate victory of counter-revolution (as we have seen).

We cannot know every possible consequence of our actions...but human reason is certainly capable of anticipating the obvious, especially when past experience is readily available for consultation.

Trotsky and, for that matter, Stalin as well, cannot be blamed for failing to see that what they thought would save the revolution turned out to play a major role in its destruction.

But if we did it, we would be committing an act that would be stupid and thus "immoral"...from the standpoint of the working class.

:cool:

[anti machine]

"where is the morality going to be derived from? public opinion, i say"

Now you begin to scare me. majoritanism is now the righful jury on morality? And don't forget that that majority recieves its morality from the ideal of God. THe public opinion says that, yes, there ARE eternal morals. And should God be removed from the picture? THe public opinion may sway the entirely opposite direction into a Nietszcheian, nihilistic system of "ethics". Public opinion and God are both equally wrong in my book.

As to Redstar's argument of "unintended consequences", i would tend to disagree that it was the MEANS of warfare and bolshevik revolution which led to the demise of Soviet-brand Marxism. For the ends were not allowed to be achieved once Stalin turned to totalitarian, isolationist orthodoxy. The ends, bear in mind, were for the entire world to participate in proletarian dicatorship. Stalin's ends, however, were most easily achieved, consisting only of gripping the reins of fascist power.

Trosky's "unintended consequence" was, quite simply, Stalin. Bolshevik ideals were crushed with a mighty and swift blow during the Moscow trials of the 30's. Their means could no longer be employed. I would ask you summarily what means and moralities YOU propose to go about, as Trotsky said, "abolishing the power of man over man."

[redstar2000]

We have a bit of confusion here...

...I would tend to disagree that it was the MEANS of warfare and bolshevik revolution which led to the demise of Soviet-brand Marxism.

I didn't intend to give the impression that revolution and vigorous prosecution of the civil war "led" to the demise of the USSR...that happens to be an extraordinarily complicated subject all by itself that involves a large number of interacting causes.

I merely wished to suggest that the internal security apparatus first established by Lenin (with the enthusiastic approval of both Trotsky and Stalin) led to some consequences that none of them anticipated at the time.

For the ends were not allowed to be achieved once Stalin turned to totalitarian, isolationist orthodoxy.

Well, the "isolationist" part came around 1924-25...when it became impossible to deny the obvious fact that there was not going to be a proletarian revolution in the west any time soon. The "totalitarian" part, I suppose could be dated from the party congress of 1930...no one publicly disagreed with Stalin after that.

But I would argue that the real turning point was the 10th Party Congress in 1921...with the defeat of the platform of the Workers' Opposition. After that, all power was concentrated in the Bolshevik Party apparatus...and especially at the highest levels, the Central Committee and the Politburo.

They may have still had communist "ideals"...in fact, I'm sure they did. But once state power was "de-coupled" from the working class itself, the Bolshevik Party was like a ship without a rudder...just some old textbooks on navigation. Some years it moved "left", some years it moved "right", and often it just went in circles.

Stalin's ends, however, were most easily achieved, consisting only of gripping the reins of fascist power.

Now, now, that's not argument, that's demonology. There is no legitimate reason that I know of to assume "evil intent" on Stalin's part; I think he sincerely thought he was "building the communist future".

He was wrong. Had Trotsky been running things, we would have seen, I suspect, much the same sorts of policies that Stalin implemented.

In those days, all communists were Leninists and all firmly believed in dictatorial rule by a "vanguard party" over the working class.

Bolshevik ideals were crushed with a mighty and swift blow during the Moscow trials of the 30's.

No, as I indicated above, the real change happened much earlier...and the "ideals" maintained a ghostly existence up through the Khrushchev era, becoming ever more tenuous, of course, until disappearing into the abyss of corruption under Brezhnev.

I would ask you summarily what means and moralities YOU propose to go about, as Trotsky said, "abolishing the power of man over man."

The return to "first principles", of course. Communism means all power to the working class...and not to any self-annointed "vanguard" elite. Any move to deprive the working class of "hands on" control of the social order, no matter what the "excuse", is "immoral" from the communist standpoint and therefore to be resisted.

The details are thorny and most of them will have to be worked out in the years immediately preceeding and following the revolution. No doubt we will make mistakes and face the "unintended consequences" of poorly-thought-out policies. But they will be fresh mistakes; it is stupid and "immoral" to repeat the mistakes of our forerunners.

We don't want to do that, do we?

:cool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes, I think that public opinion is the final truth, whatever the people say, should be held as ultimately true, in case of morality. nobody is more moraly enlightened than anyone else. if the people are fooled by religion, who are we to judge that?

(Edited by Victorcommie at 11:52 pm on June 3, 2003)

[anti machine]

"I think he (Stalin) sincerely thought he was "building the communist future"."

So the Moscow trials and executions of Marxist intellectuals were carried out to "build the communist future"? I think we underestimate the intentions of Uncle Joe.

I don't think there is MUCH confusion between us, redstar. We both see the mistakes of the past, and wish to safe-guard against repeating them. I do tend to disagree that Trotsky,in his ideological romanticism, would have made the same sorts of mistakes and policies that Stalin did. But history never took us down that route, and I suppose we shall never know. I do, however, agree with returning to "first principles" and your condemnation of dictatorial vanguards. But judging from Trotsky's own words, I believe, as you most likely do not, that he would have made every effort to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. It was far more embedded into his ideals than his competitor and conqueror Stalin.

And victorcommie: if you do indeed hold truth to what you are saying, i recommend that you stike the surname "commie".

"If the people are fooled by religion, who are we to judge that?" Go read the manifesto. We are the VERY people to judge "that". Religion is the counter-revolution to Marxist thought, the dope of the masses. IF anyone is fooled by ANYTHING, i hold it in the highest moral regards to enlighten them, as should any true communist. THe liberation of man's mind and religious doctrines CANNOT coexist.

70% of the public approves of George W. Bush's crusades. SO they are justified? Public opinion claimed that manifest destiny, unregulated capitalist "enterprise", genocide and slavery were acceptable and even condonable. SO they are then justified?

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

anti, we are the people to judge religion, but if the people continue to believe, we cannot disregard their decision and impose our heresy upon them. this undermines their freedom.

70% of the public approves of George W. Bush's crusades. SO they are justified? Public opinion claimed that manifest destiny, unregulated capitalist "enterprise", genocide and slavery were acceptable and even condonable. SO they are then justified?

are we more moraly enlightened than the rest of the population? anyway, when taking into account public opinion, it is important to take everyones opinions. did the slaves agree to slavery? did the working masses agree to unregulated capitalism? did the iraqis agree to bush's crusade, etc.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 12:25 pm on June 4, 2003)

[James]

Just a little addition...

The theory of "natural rights"