4 ms·

> If we're talking about hypotheticals then, perhaps How can you say such a thing? Do you not recoil in horror when innocent people are murdered? A system fo

> If we're talking about hypotheticals then, perhaps How can you say such a thing? Do you not recoil in horror when innocent people are murdered? A system founded on genocide and tyranny will necessarily continue to use those means to ensure its survival in the face of any threat to its survival. Hitler was necessarily, categorically unable to establish any utopia because of the nature of the authority he claimed and used en route. The question isn't whether the ends could have justified the means. The reality is that the means used utterly shut out any good ends from even being possible as long as he remained in power.

fluoridation 3y ago
An assumption of the hypothetical is that Hitler succeeded and created a utopia. The question was not about whether those means in reality could have possibly created a utopia; I agree with you, they couldn't have. The question was if we assume Hitler succeeded and created a utopia, then he was right?
- Geisterde 3y ago
  I think the salient point is the horror. If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Just because someone can exhibit this behavior doesn't mean they should. To your original point in all of this, does this being a morally consistent example of where consequentialism leads not make you question the basis of it being right?
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    > If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Because I don't think there's anything that's unjustifiable, and I say that in the literal sense. That is, take any position and you'll find both people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. I've seen people seriously argue that 1+1=2 is not necessarily true. I explicitly try to avoid thinking "yeah, that's obvious, no one could disagree with that". It's obvious to us that the holocaust was a horrible event that would be better if it had never happened. I don't think it would be so obvious to someone living in this hypothetical utopia. Hell, I'm not sure it's obvious to everyone living right now. Are you saying you can't conceive of any society that's so advanced that most people would think "yeah, it was terrible that so many people had to die, but look at everything we have"?
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      I can conceive of the society, yes, I think we both probably live in one. It won't be obvious to everyone that a certain action is horrific, this is also true. Which is why I take a more firm stance on not initiating aggression on peaceful people, it short circuits all tribalism and fervor in favor of a principle which before all other action must be followed. This also isn't readily obvious to everyone necessarily, but it also provides me the latitude to defend myself from the initiation of agression by others, so it doesnt necessirily need to. That's not really what I am getting at though. You as an individual, I think should consider leaning into the horrific scenarios made possible by an ends justify the means framework and consider whether other moral frameworks are more appropriate. Of course people will always do what people do, it doesn't follow that they are justified in doing so.
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        I don't believe people act the way they do based on one moral framework or another, nor that they have as many choices anyway. I'm not even sure Hitler was too exceptional, beyond his position of power. I think most people act impulsively most of the time, and that sometimes their actions can be retroactively justified. As another example, I don't think the perpetrators of the rape of Nanking were exceptional men; I think most of them were ordinary men in an exceptional situation. If that's not the case, then I can't reconcile that with how many pillages have happened throughout history.
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  If this is consequentialism, then I wholly reject it on the basis that it allows logically (and morally) inconsistent views of reality. No one creates good out of their own evil. Perhaps the question is only seriously posited in the face of an enemy whose defeat would seem to require use of evil means. If that's what you're facing, dear reader, then stay strong and hold fast. Don't resort to evil means. If you do, the real enemy (evil itself) has won over you, you become part of the problem, and you may become an enemy to a better person than you.
- the_af 3y ago
  Do you think murdering innocents, children included -- shooting mothers with their children in their arms -- could possibly be right, regardless of whether any utopia is ever reached? (I know you don't, I'm not accusing you of anything. All I'm arguing is against this particular notion of ends justifying the means. We know there are people who think like this, but the mind of someone who would believe this is hopelessly broken, in my opinion.)

fluoridation 3y ago

An assumption of the hypothetical is that Hitler succeeded and created a utopia. The question was not about whether those means in reality could have possibly created a utopia; I agree with you, they couldn't have. The question was if we assume Hitler succeeded and created a utopia, then he was right?

Geisterde 3y ago
I think the salient point is the horror. If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Just because someone can exhibit this behavior doesn't mean they should. To your original point in all of this, does this being a morally consistent example of where consequentialism leads not make you question the basis of it being right?
- fluoridation 3y ago
  > If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Because I don't think there's anything that's unjustifiable, and I say that in the literal sense. That is, take any position and you'll find both people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. I've seen people seriously argue that 1+1=2 is not necessarily true. I explicitly try to avoid thinking "yeah, that's obvious, no one could disagree with that". It's obvious to us that the holocaust was a horrible event that would be better if it had never happened. I don't think it would be so obvious to someone living in this hypothetical utopia. Hell, I'm not sure it's obvious to everyone living right now. Are you saying you can't conceive of any society that's so advanced that most people would think "yeah, it was terrible that so many people had to die, but look at everything we have"?
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    I can conceive of the society, yes, I think we both probably live in one. It won't be obvious to everyone that a certain action is horrific, this is also true. Which is why I take a more firm stance on not initiating aggression on peaceful people, it short circuits all tribalism and fervor in favor of a principle which before all other action must be followed. This also isn't readily obvious to everyone necessarily, but it also provides me the latitude to defend myself from the initiation of agression by others, so it doesnt necessirily need to. That's not really what I am getting at though. You as an individual, I think should consider leaning into the horrific scenarios made possible by an ends justify the means framework and consider whether other moral frameworks are more appropriate. Of course people will always do what people do, it doesn't follow that they are justified in doing so.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      I don't believe people act the way they do based on one moral framework or another, nor that they have as many choices anyway. I'm not even sure Hitler was too exceptional, beyond his position of power. I think most people act impulsively most of the time, and that sometimes their actions can be retroactively justified. As another example, I don't think the perpetrators of the rape of Nanking were exceptional men; I think most of them were ordinary men in an exceptional situation. If that's not the case, then I can't reconcile that with how many pillages have happened throughout history.
TimTheTinker 3y ago
If this is consequentialism, then I wholly reject it on the basis that it allows logically (and morally) inconsistent views of reality. No one creates good out of their own evil. Perhaps the question is only seriously posited in the face of an enemy whose defeat would seem to require use of evil means. If that's what you're facing, dear reader, then stay strong and hold fast. Don't resort to evil means. If you do, the real enemy (evil itself) has won over you, you become part of the problem, and you may become an enemy to a better person than you.
the_af 3y ago
Do you think murdering innocents, children included -- shooting mothers with their children in their arms -- could possibly be right, regardless of whether any utopia is ever reached? (I know you don't, I'm not accusing you of anything. All I'm arguing is against this particular notion of ends justifying the means. We know there are people who think like this, but the mind of someone who would believe this is hopelessly broken, in my opinion.)