The end justifies the means

[Bastable]

Does the end always justify the means?

Does it in some situations?

Or never?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[GPDP]

I believe that means determine, or are at least highly influential on ends.

Saying that ends justify means sounds an awful lot like Machiavellian realpolitik tripe.

[Pogue]

It depends entirely on the context.

[Rosa Provokateur]

It depends on the means and the ends. The ends being anarchy are good but any means that take human life are unjustifiable in my opinion.

[revolution inaction]

It depends on the means and the ends. The ends being anarchy are good but any means that take human life are unjustifiable in my opinion.

Why?


As far as the original question goes, I think the ends and means can't be separated.

[Adam KH]

If you want anyone to give you a definite answer, ask a more definite question.

[al8]

Does the end always justify the means?


What else justifies the means?

[Herman]

The ends justify the means, so long as there is something that justifies the ends.

Guess who said that.

[Tower of Bebel]

The fact remains that in case of socialism we don't know what the end really is like. The degeneration of the USSR is an example of this. So the means (tactics) must be justified in another way: subjection to public and democratic criticism.

[Harrycombs]

The ends justify the means, so long as there is something that justifies the ends.

Guess who said that.

Who?


I think it depends on what the ends is, and what is done to reach it. For example, if it is to reach communism, and some people have to die, then it would be justifiable. But if 10s of millions died in the process, then there would have to be a better way to reach that end.

[Decolonize The Left]

The age-old question of ends vs. means ought to be abandoned for several reasons:
1) "Justification" is relative to perspective and condition/circumstance. It is never permanent.
2) There is never any "end."
3) All "ends" are "means" to another "end," which is in turn a "means" to another "end."

- August

[Bastable]

If you want anyone to give you a definite answer, ask a more definite question.

Hypothetical question for everyone.

Let's say that you lived under an oppressive government. You could free your entire country by destroying a certain building. But there are civilians working in and around this building. Destroying it will free millions, but a few hundred innocent people may die. Do you go through with it?

How would destroying the building free an entire country?



The fact remains that in case of socialism we don't know what the end really is like. The degeneration of the USSR is an example of this. So the means (tactics) must be justified in another way: subjection to public and democratic criticism.

Do you mean that the means should be an end in themselves? And that from that socialism may come?

[Tower of Bebel]

Do you mean that the means should be an end in themselves? And that from that socialism may come?
No, The end can justify the means. But as long as the end isn't there, we should guarantee the means to the end (o)the(r) means to justify those means to the end. So the concept means should be able to justify itself, but it shouldn't be the end by itself. The means and the goal are inseparable, yet not the same.
This is an example: socialism can justify our tactics. But what justifies our tactics when there is no socialism? So we need public criticism and democracy to justify our tactics.

[JimmyJazz]

The fact remains that in case of socialism we don't know what the end really is like. The degeneration of the USSR is an example of this. So the means (tactics) must be justified in another way: subjection to public and democratic criticism.

Damn good post.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Why?


As far as the original question goes, I think the ends and means can't be separated.
I dont believe in killing people; I see anarchy as liberating all people and you cant free someone by forcing them to die.

[Sweetpotos]

In my opinion the only thing that could make the means unjustified is if they failed to achieve the end.

If you have an end but are unwilling to use any and all means to realize it, you ultimately forfeit the end.

[Bastable]

No, The end can justify the means. But as long as the end isn't there, we should guarantee the means to the end (o)the(r) means to justify those means to the end. So the concept means should be able to justify itself, but it shouldn't be the end by itself. The means and the goal are inseparable, yet not the same.
This is an example: socialism can justify our tactics. But what justifies our tactics when there is no socialism? So we need public criticism and democracy to justify our tactics.

Aaah, I see what you mean. interesting point.

[apathy maybe]

The fact remains that in case of socialism we don't know what the end really is like. The degeneration of the USSR is an example of this. So the means (tactics) must be justified in another way: subjection to public and democratic criticism.

Or, alternatively, the means can be justified according to our moral/ethical view points. That is, Green Apostle doesn't believe that killing people is ever justified, therefore, the means are weighed against their personal ethics, rather then public and democratic criticism.


I dont believe in killing people; I see anarchy as liberating all people and you cant free someone by forcing them to die.
I disagree with you personally. If I am being attacked, I have the express right to self-defence. Only pacifists reject any and all violence, even in self-defence. Most people support the concept of self-defence.

----

Do the ends justify the means? The means are the ends. We can't use non-libertarian methods to achieve liberty, and we can't force people to be free.

[Herman]

Who?

Leon Trotsky.

[Tower of Bebel]

Or, alternatively, the means can be justified according to our moral/ethical view points. That is, Green Apostle doesn't believe that killing people is ever justified, therefore, the means are weighed against their personal ethics, rather then public and democratic criticism.Yes, ethics and morals can be a part of public criticism; yet those values are not a solid basis for justification.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Or, alternatively, the means can be justified according to our moral/ethical view points. That is, Green Apostle doesn't believe that killing people is ever justified, therefore, the means are weighed against their personal ethics, rather then public and democratic criticism.


I disagree with you personally. If I am being attacked, I have the express right to self-defence. Only pacifists reject any and all violence, even in self-defence. Most people support the concept of self-defence.


Self-defense is one thing but taking life is another, I'm in no position to tell people not to defend themselves but I voluntarily opt-out of the taking of human life.

[mikelepore]

Does the end always justify the means?
Does it in some situations?


Obviously yes in some situations, for example, it's better to feel the little poke from an inoculation than to die of smallpox. So the only question is where to draw the line. Some people go on to say that it's better to have some inconvenience in order to achieve some major advantage, but to an extent where other people say hey that's not just a minor inconvenience but a terrible excess.

[Tower of Bebel]

Sorry, but I thought I had to post this. Ignore what I first wrote about morals.


Some years later, writing in exile, Trotsky, while adhering to an orthodox Marxist position on the essentially class nature of morality, significantly qualified his judgement in one respect: “A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in turn needs to be justified. From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to extending the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man … That is permissible … which really leads to the liberation of mankind. Since this end can only be achieved through revolution, the liberating morality of the proletariat is necessarily endowed with a revolutionary character … It deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws” (L Trotsky, ‘Their morals and ours’, in Marxist versus liberal views on morality New York 1969, p37).

The emphasis, in view of Trotsky’s and our own bitter historical experience, must naturally be on the phrase, “that which really leads to the liberation of mankind”: liberation from all forms of alienation and oppression; a liberation that, yes, can only and must be achieved through the revolutionary self-activity and self-emancipation of the working class in overthrowing the conditions of its exploitation.

There is indeed an intrinsic moral content to our struggle for the self-emancipation of the working class, a moral imperative that derives from Marx’s own philosophical and political vision of a world free of alienation and oppression in all its forms. But let us never forget, in the light of history, that, to use Rosa Luxemburg’s words, it is democracy, the “living source of all spiritual riches and progress”, the “active, untrammelled, energetic political life of the broadest masses of the people”, that is the ultimate, the only cornerstone on which a truly free and moral human society can be founded.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/414/communist_morality.html

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I agree that the means and the end are inseparable, but not necessarily in the fashion in which you elucidate it.

It's here that Hegelian logic can be so useful. One should take the contradiction of means/ends and sublate Aufhebung them. This sublation recognizes the difference between means/ends while positing they belong to the same conceptual object, purpose.

You want to be educated (means) to increase your revolutionary knowledge (end) which makes revolutionary knowledge (means) the way one becomes educated (end).

The strong distinction between the means isn't useful or accurate. We should realize the unity of both.

[Rascolnikova]

The only way the end might not justify the means would be under an ethics that expressly forbids certain actions without any consideration of their results.

Usually when people speak of ends not justifying means, they leave some part of the ends out of their analysis. Arguably it does harm to individuals and societies to be the perpetrators of violence; this, among other factors which make the ends far less attractive on balance, is frequently omitted.

[ZeroNowhere]

I believe that means determine, or are at least highly influential on ends.
Yup, the means shape the ends.