3 ms·

So? "WSJ readers" might say that they'd prefer "Civilisation" (or space exploration, universities, development of the Internet, etc.) be supported on a voluntar

by jrmurad 17y ago

So? "WSJ readers" might say that they'd prefer "Civilisation" (or space exploration, universities, development of the Internet, etc.) be supported on a voluntary basis rather than by forced participation. That hardly precludes them from enjoying the result. May a grocery-store-meat-consumer, who is aware of the cruel treatment of livestock, not be opposed to the methods by which his sustenance originated? Would you criticize him (as a hypocrite?) for advocating change so that in the future, hopefully, good things will have more ethical origins rather than having "the ends justify the means"?

fnid 17y ago
Would you prefer to have the means justify the ends? If you say, "Hey capitalism is great." but it results in the destruction of our civilization, then is that okay? I just came up with that. Usually people say, "The ends justify the means." But I've never known of someone to take it the other way. Thinking about it that way though, it seems that is precisely what we do with Capitalism. We know that greed is bad and leads to bad things, but we justify those ends because the alternative means, that is, a bit of loss of individualism and sacrifice of public property is, by capitalists, considered a severe punishment to the self. So we say things like, "Bankers destroying the economy is okay, because we were more free until it happened." We say, "Environmental destruction is okay, because only a socialist world could prevent it." We say, "Big SUVs and houses and consumerism are good, because the government shouldn't interfere in people's personal decisions." But the end product of all that is a less habitable planet and less happy place for future generations -- and not only future generations, but these generations in the future.
- defen 17y ago
  While I disagree with you about capitalism, I think this concept of "the means justify the ends" is a very interesting one. It seems to be providing a name for a problem that befalls people on both sides of the political spectrum - following an ideology to its logical conclusion, regardless of its actual effects on the world.

by jrmurad 17y ago

fnid 17y ago

Would you prefer to have the means justify the ends? If you say, "Hey capitalism is great." but it results in the destruction of our civilization, then is that okay? I just came up with that. Usually people say, "The ends justify the means." But I've never known of someone to take it the other way. Thinking about it that way though, it seems that is precisely what we do with Capitalism. We know that greed is bad and leads to bad things, but we justify those ends because the alternative means, that is, a bit of loss of individualism and sacrifice of public property is, by capitalists, considered a severe punishment to the self. So we say things like, "Bankers destroying the economy is okay, because we were more free until it happened." We say, "Environmental destruction is okay, because only a socialist world could prevent it." We say, "Big SUVs and houses and consumerism are good, because the government shouldn't interfere in people's personal decisions." But the end product of all that is a less habitable planet and less happy place for future generations -- and not only future generations, but these generations in the future.

defen 17y ago
While I disagree with you about capitalism, I think this concept of "the means justify the ends" is a very interesting one. It seems to be providing a name for a problem that befalls people on both sides of the political spectrum - following an ideology to its logical conclusion, regardless of its actual effects on the world.