3 ms·

Ends do not justify the means. And it’s not just a moral faith: the savage way in which you grab power and silence dissidents creates an environment where bad i

by pm90 8y ago

Ends do not justify the means. And it’s not just a moral faith: the savage way in which you grab power and silence dissidents creates an environment where bad ideas are allowed to not fail and fester until they destroy everything.

manfredo 8y ago
> Ends do not justify the means. So was Egypt better under the Muslim Brotherhood than the military junta? The "means" of their overthrow were certainly bad (a military coup), so does that automatically mean it would have been better for Egypt to have continued to be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Is Singapore a morally bad country? We don't know for sure if they would have achieved the same results with a democracy, but in our mental image of "shitty, immoral countires" does Singapore pop into mind? It's easy to make moralistic claims like this, but to a certain extent we all agree that certain ends to justify certain means. Police shouldn't kill a criminal for stealing an orange. But they probably should kill a criminal if they're holding someone hostage at knifepoint (Purely speaking in terms of the morality of killing people in commission of a crime, I don't know if shooting at a someone holding a hostage is good policing)
- pm90 8y ago
  It isn’t helpful to apply the same moral principles that you use in specific situations to generalize over the entire space of morality. We know for a fact that systems with unchecked political power have a way of devolving into autocracies/oligarchies, which I don’t believe is a system that most people would want to live under.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- prophesi 8y ago
  I think you're missing the point of the article (if your original comment was actually a comment on the content of the article in the first place). The Arab world is in a dangerous place because you can be -dismembered- for your ideas. Not for holding someone hostage at knifepoint. If you allow no room for criticism, you're allowed free reign.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    I think you're still missing the point I'm making. A world in which you can be dismembered for disseminating political ides is terrible. Of course. That's as obvious as calling the sky blue. But is something like a military seizing power from a democratic government to prevent a sectarian crisis a bad thing? Where is the inflection point in these sorts of questions? An example I think is valuable is the People's Republic of China. Of course I'm appalled by people getting disappeared, mass government surveillance, and gamifying totalitarianism through social credit. But in a sense, I can empathize with why a mainland Chinese person could view the PRC and CCP in a positive light. In spite of its evils it has drastically improved the well being of (most) its people - targeted minorities like Uyghurs not included. Crackdowns on dissent seem immoral to me from my western view of the world, but among many Chinese there's a sense that curbing dissent is necessary to prevent social collapse. There's this phrase that goes along the lines of "China is it's own worst enemy". Most of China's most destructive conflicts have been civil wars. The country is understandably skeptical of peaceful transition of power - something inherently necessary for a democracy. Is China capable of adopting a western-style democracy and extensive civil liberties without collapsing? I don't know, but I can see why many (most?) Chinese wouldn't want to gamble the future of their country on such a bet. In a similar vein, I'd like to see the thought process of someone who supports MBS and his allies in spite of this assassination.
- guelo 8y ago
  > So was Egypt better under the Muslim Brotherhood than the military junta? I don't see why not. Morsi only had one year but he followed some constitutional processes and made some attempts to moderate his Islamic party. Anything you can accuse Morsi of general el-Sisi has been much worse on.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    The Egyptians I've spoken to had different opinions. As stated before, they were Coptic Christians (a religious minority) so their views are likely different from the average Egyptian. But they worried extensively of the possibility of sectarian rule, and regard el-Sisi with positive regard. El-Sisi met with the Coptic Pope, and from their point of view did a significantly better job of assuring religious minorities that they'd be protected. And regardless of the choice between el-Sisi and Morsi, almost all of them regard the overthrow of Mubarak as a mistake (albeit in retrospect). Again, to reiterate it's worth mentioning that this is a specific perspective, and one that has a good chance of not being representative of the majority.
sir_bearington 8y ago
It's difficult to respect black and white statements like this. I get that it's always better to accomplish social goals peacefully, but plenty of social progress has been made by dictators that eliminate opponents. Take Turkey, for instance. Mustafa Kemal ruled forcibly in many ways, and almost certainly had dissidents killed. He fought in the Turkish war of Independence so he has blood on his hands one way or another. But I'd seriously question the judgement of any who would claim that his rule was bad for Turkey. He drastically improved the country's institutions and brought is social policies more in line with Western ideals. In the coming years the military would repeatedly overthrow legally legitimate governments to keep the country secular. There's an honest discussion to be had over whether or not Turkey would be in a better person if Erdogan had been overthrown. Of course in a liberal Western democracy, which I assume you live in, doesn't stand to benefit from regimes like that. But the blanket statement along the lines of "dictators bad, democracies good" is not productive, and sometimes feel like willful ignorance of history. This killing is a poor forecast, but time will tell whether history remembers MBS as Saudi Arabia as an Ataturk or a ineffective, bloody ruler (or, much more likely, as just another average Saudi monarch).
- pm90 8y ago
  I'm not arguing against dictatorships as much as specific kinds of dictatorships. Singapore has been a one-party dictatorship for a while now, South Korea was under the military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee for a while too. But the Singaporean rule has persisted as long perhaps because the regime hasn't wielded its power as brazenly as the KSA just did, and probably continues to do on a more daily basis inside the kingdom itself. The point I'm trying to make is that even dictators/absolute monarchs need to recognize the limits of their power and wield it accordingly. This completely unnecessary exercise of state power has exposed that MBS isn't really the savior of KSA that many had proclaimed: he is a thug, a mob leader who grabbed power from his relatives and initiated token reforms to appease the west while silencing his critics in brutal ways. Even if his "ultimate" intentions are good, his means of achieving them will hinder him from doing that.
xxxdarrenxxx 8y ago
Reality however is not formed this way. Do you think you would read this with a cup of coffee on ur fancy computer if our ancestors didn't colonize and strip resources from other nations. For that matter we have the Romans and the church to thank for streets and other infrastructure and most relevant the means to write here (the english language unified through dominance of old), and they didn't swoop over Europe with flowers and treats I can assure you. It's easy to say the end does not justify the means, when you have been enjoying western luxury all your life gained through (spoils of) war

by pm90 8y ago

manfredo 8y ago

> Ends do not justify the means. So was Egypt better under the Muslim Brotherhood than the military junta? The "means" of their overthrow were certainly bad (a military coup), so does that automatically mean it would have been better for Egypt to have continued to be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Is Singapore a morally bad country? We don't know for sure if they would have achieved the same results with a democracy, but in our mental image of "shitty, immoral countires" does Singapore pop into mind? It's easy to make moralistic claims like this, but to a certain extent we all agree that certain ends to justify certain means. Police shouldn't kill a criminal for stealing an orange. But they probably should kill a criminal if they're holding someone hostage at knifepoint (Purely speaking in terms of the morality of killing people in commission of a crime, I don't know if shooting at a someone holding a hostage is good policing)

pm90 8y ago
It isn’t helpful to apply the same moral principles that you use in specific situations to generalize over the entire space of morality. We know for a fact that systems with unchecked political power have a way of devolving into autocracies/oligarchies, which I don’t believe is a system that most people would want to live under.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
prophesi 8y ago
I think you're missing the point of the article (if your original comment was actually a comment on the content of the article in the first place). The Arab world is in a dangerous place because you can be -dismembered- for your ideas. Not for holding someone hostage at knifepoint. If you allow no room for criticism, you're allowed free reign.
- manfredo 8y ago
  I think you're still missing the point I'm making. A world in which you can be dismembered for disseminating political ides is terrible. Of course. That's as obvious as calling the sky blue. But is something like a military seizing power from a democratic government to prevent a sectarian crisis a bad thing? Where is the inflection point in these sorts of questions? An example I think is valuable is the People's Republic of China. Of course I'm appalled by people getting disappeared, mass government surveillance, and gamifying totalitarianism through social credit. But in a sense, I can empathize with why a mainland Chinese person could view the PRC and CCP in a positive light. In spite of its evils it has drastically improved the well being of (most) its people - targeted minorities like Uyghurs not included. Crackdowns on dissent seem immoral to me from my western view of the world, but among many Chinese there's a sense that curbing dissent is necessary to prevent social collapse. There's this phrase that goes along the lines of "China is it's own worst enemy". Most of China's most destructive conflicts have been civil wars. The country is understandably skeptical of peaceful transition of power - something inherently necessary for a democracy. Is China capable of adopting a western-style democracy and extensive civil liberties without collapsing? I don't know, but I can see why many (most?) Chinese wouldn't want to gamble the future of their country on such a bet. In a similar vein, I'd like to see the thought process of someone who supports MBS and his allies in spite of this assassination.
guelo 8y ago
> So was Egypt better under the Muslim Brotherhood than the military junta? I don't see why not. Morsi only had one year but he followed some constitutional processes and made some attempts to moderate his Islamic party. Anything you can accuse Morsi of general el-Sisi has been much worse on.
- manfredo 8y ago
  The Egyptians I've spoken to had different opinions. As stated before, they were Coptic Christians (a religious minority) so their views are likely different from the average Egyptian. But they worried extensively of the possibility of sectarian rule, and regard el-Sisi with positive regard. El-Sisi met with the Coptic Pope, and from their point of view did a significantly better job of assuring religious minorities that they'd be protected. And regardless of the choice between el-Sisi and Morsi, almost all of them regard the overthrow of Mubarak as a mistake (albeit in retrospect). Again, to reiterate it's worth mentioning that this is a specific perspective, and one that has a good chance of not being representative of the majority.

sir_bearington 8y ago

It's difficult to respect black and white statements like this. I get that it's always better to accomplish social goals peacefully, but plenty of social progress has been made by dictators that eliminate opponents. Take Turkey, for instance. Mustafa Kemal ruled forcibly in many ways, and almost certainly had dissidents killed. He fought in the Turkish war of Independence so he has blood on his hands one way or another. But I'd seriously question the judgement of any who would claim that his rule was bad for Turkey. He drastically improved the country's institutions and brought is social policies more in line with Western ideals. In the coming years the military would repeatedly overthrow legally legitimate governments to keep the country secular. There's an honest discussion to be had over whether or not Turkey would be in a better person if Erdogan had been overthrown. Of course in a liberal Western democracy, which I assume you live in, doesn't stand to benefit from regimes like that. But the blanket statement along the lines of "dictators bad, democracies good" is not productive, and sometimes feel like willful ignorance of history. This killing is a poor forecast, but time will tell whether history remembers MBS as Saudi Arabia as an Ataturk or a ineffective, bloody ruler (or, much more likely, as just another average Saudi monarch).

pm90 8y ago
I'm not arguing against dictatorships as much as specific kinds of dictatorships. Singapore has been a one-party dictatorship for a while now, South Korea was under the military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee for a while too. But the Singaporean rule has persisted as long perhaps because the regime hasn't wielded its power as brazenly as the KSA just did, and probably continues to do on a more daily basis inside the kingdom itself. The point I'm trying to make is that even dictators/absolute monarchs need to recognize the limits of their power and wield it accordingly. This completely unnecessary exercise of state power has exposed that MBS isn't really the savior of KSA that many had proclaimed: he is a thug, a mob leader who grabbed power from his relatives and initiated token reforms to appease the west while silencing his critics in brutal ways. Even if his "ultimate" intentions are good, his means of achieving them will hinder him from doing that.

xxxdarrenxxx 8y ago

Reality however is not formed this way. Do you think you would read this with a cup of coffee on ur fancy computer if our ancestors didn't colonize and strip resources from other nations. For that matter we have the Romans and the church to thank for streets and other infrastructure and most relevant the means to write here (the english language unified through dominance of old), and they didn't swoop over Europe with flowers and treats I can assure you. It's easy to say the end does not justify the means, when you have been enjoying western luxury all your life gained through (spoils of) war