Consequentialism

[Pirate Utopian]

Do the ends justify the means? yes or no?

I'll give my opinion later.

[Cult of Reason]

It depends on the ends and the means, obviously.

[Pirate Utopian]

Well for example terrorism for a classless society.

[Hit The North]

There is a necessary connection between the methods we use and the outcomes they produce. It would be difficult to see how acts of terrorism could create a classless society, for instance.

When Marx argued that the liberation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves, he didn't mean because it was the most efficient or most ethical means of achieving socialism - but that it was the only means of achieving it.

Reality doesn't work on the basis that you are free to choose any old means for achieving specific goals.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, you are absolutely right here, but just lose the 'necessary' part.

We would not be able to make sesne of the working class being liberated by any other force, given what we mean by 'working class' and 'liberation', etc.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, the ends justify the means - in the sense that an action is good if the end result is good. For instance, the liberation of the working class would be an extremely good result; thus, any action that leads to the liberation of the working class is good and justified (unless, of course, that action also happens to have some extremely negative consequences that outweigh the benefits of liberating the working class - something like genocide or the devastation of an entire continent).

This does not mean that you can use any means to achieve any result, of course. Some means are simply not good for the job. Just like you cannot build a skyscraper out of sand or chop down a tree with a harmonica, so you cannot liberate the working class using any other force but the working class itself.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, they do. Of course it is the actual ends that will jsutify the mans. Not the hoped for ones. And it is all ends that have to be taken into account. Appalling means will always result in appalling ends even if they also achieve somethig good for example.

[awayish]

this is a rather brutal way of phrasinig consequentialism.

whatever consequentialism says, consequences are consequences, shit happened. whether it is justified or not, just try not to lose sight of the consequences.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:06 pm
It depends on the ends and the means, obviously.
Yes, and that is the key point.

If I killed ten people, so that a hundred people could each have a bowl of ice-cream, then the ends would not justify the means.

In a workers' struggle violence is sometimes necessary as a defence against imperialism, counter-revolution, and bourgeois oppression. In these cases, the ends do justify the means.

[MarxSchmarx]

Yes. Here's why. If the ends don't justify the means, then what else could?

[al8]

I've never really understood the negative attitude to "the end justifies the means". I've most often heard it as part of a question said in a contemptious tone; "So... the ends justifies the means?" followed by a matching facial expression.

It sounds to me like a slogan for political ineffectiveness - an advice/attitude given to the powerless to be worn as a 'mantle of moral superiority'. What is suggested is that the oppressed should be curtious - very te-party-like, in their struggle against the oppressor.

I think we should do whatever we find effective, no matter how brutal our enemies consider it. I'm completely indifferent to the subjective moanings of my enemies. And I hope others are too. I mean they always hurl shit. What is most important is to win. So by whatever means we deem effective to achive a goal, is justified in proportion to how worthy that end goal is.

[awayish]

Unless you mean to kill them, or otherwise establish a claim on land and such, 'victory' is not achieved by hurling shit. The point is to convince them to become socialists. Everyone.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:17 am
...'victory' is not achieved by hurling shit.
That's not what I said. Be the revolution bloodless or bloody, we'll be child-eaters all the same, in the eyes of the reactionaries and their media. That is what I meant by them hurling shit.

But theres a time and place for everything. Such as peaceful methods. I just don't like it when revolutionaries limit their range of actions (and thus effectiveness) because of some arbitrary über-moral wallowing.

[awayish]

not necessarily. there are many socialists and progressive humanists, who, although deeply impressed by the problems of society, choose nonviolent methods for expression.

to talk about society as a 'thing' you want to fix is a reification of the whole project of social activism. at the very least, it doesn't give you a good lcue of where to begin.