End and the Means

[leo-rcc]

In fact, had the first revolution and the reign of terror not resulted in just another dictatorship and subsequent monarchy. I would have found it a great achievement. But it wasn't.

[bozo]

In fact, had the first revolution and the reign of terror not resulted in just another dictatorship and subsequent monarchy. I would have found it a great achievement. But it wasn't.

Leo, if you were animal, you'd be an eel. Goodnight.

[leo-rcc]

And a good night to you too.

One errata: I should have said "In fact, had the first revolution not resulted in just another dictatorship and subsequent monarchy. I would have found it a great achievement, and the reign of terror would never have happened. But it did result in just another dictatorship."

It's late for me too.

[Tiberius]

Adrian, apologies I didn't phrase my question properly ( I'd had a few drinks and it was late ).
What if the one strapped to the track was the " goody " and all the people on the train were real " baddies "? Put your own interpretation on good and bad.
My view is that the answer to the question is how you view the end result. Some results will justify the means, others won't, depending on your own view.

I agree, different questions demand different ways of looking at it. I think I would still kill the one "goody" in the case above, simply because there could still be productive things the "baddies" could do (and after all, you let me put my own interpretations on "good" and "bad").

Oh, and let's try not to turn this forum into a place where one can simply throw an insult and walk away from the show. It's far more beneficial for both parties if you continue to "duke it out" or agree to disagree.

[leo-rcc]

coming back to ends justifying means:

How does one determine what constitutes as an end, and how does one value it to offset with the means?

[dagda]

'It was I who invited you to quote examples and you have quoted this one.
You appear to be suggesting that the motive on the part of the Americans was to save more Japanese. It wasn't, it was to save the lives of more Americans in the event of a prolonged land conflict.
I can understand the tactical nature of the decision without necessarilly supporting it. And the dropping of the second bomb is extremely hard to defend.
And as regards democracy, western style, do you REALLY believe we are all equal????'


The main idea of the bomb drop was to save American troops, I agree but the ends was the saving of millions of Japanese (a figure I support). The second bomb was overkill but without a bomb at all the Japanese government would not have surrendered untill Tokyo fell and this would have resulted in many more deaths hence the means can be justified on the lives it saved even if the lives saved were not intended.

That being said, tha Japanese knew they had lost the war from as early as 1943 but were holding out for a conditional surrender. Th Allied command would only give unconditional but perhaps the war could have ended much more quickly. All in all, probably a bad example.

And no, we are not all equals but we all must have equal rights as trying to decide who is 'better' is a tricky buisness.

[bozo]

Adrian, apologies I didn't phrase my question properly ( I'd had a few drinks and it was late ).
What if the one strapped to the track was the " goody " and all the people on the train were real " baddies "? Put your own interpretation on good and bad.
My view is that the answer to the question is how you view the end result. Some results will justify the means, others won't, depending on your own view.

I agree, different questions demand different ways of looking at it. I think I would still kill the one "goody" in the case above, simply because there could still be productive things the "baddies" could do (and after all, you let me put my own interpretations on "good" and "bad").

Oh, and let's try not to turn this forum into a place where one can simply throw an insult and walk away from the show. It's far more beneficial for both parties if you continue to "duke it out" or agree to disagree.

Adrian, I know you have a job to do BUT I think Leo is man enough to look after himself! My reference to being an eel ( if he were animal ) was intended as a bit of fun...eels are slippy things. I felt Leo was being a tad slippery.
I like to think Leo is not mortally offended by our lively debate.

[Tiberius]

I am fully aware that Leo is able to look after himself, and I wasn't trying to be protective of him, rather the attitudes here on the forum. If I let you just throw an insult and walk away from the entire debate it might encourage others to do the same kind of thing, and the last thing I want for this forum is for people to abandon all forms of courtesy and start throwing insults around. Firstly it is rude, and secondly it isn't the sort of thing you need to do to prove a point. If anything, it makes you look immature and unable to form a decent rebuttal.

[bozo]

I am fully aware that Leo is able to look after himself, and I wasn't trying to be protective of him, rather the attitudes here on the forum. If I let you just throw an insult and walk away from the entire debate it might encourage others to do the same kind of thing, and the last thing I want for this forum is for people to abandon all forms of courtesy and start throwing insults around. Firstly it is rude, and secondly it isn't the sort of thing you need to do to prove a point. If anything, it makes you look immature and unable to form a decent rebuttal.

Lighten up Adrian.

[leo-rcc]

I like to think Leo is not mortally offended by our lively debate.

Of course not. I'm not offended at all.