I hate to be a bore about this, but it's not a tautology. The "ends justify the means' only if you are a consequentialist, and that's a controversial theory. Anyway, not even then. This is sloppy talk. People should reread the Trotsky-Dewey debate (Their Moral and Ours), in which two parties from different perspectives, both consequentialists who think that what makes an action right is that it promotes the good, agree that good ends do not justify any means whatsoever, and that there are means that undermine any good that might come out of their use. And then there are nonconsequentialists like me who think that in most circumstances there are near-absolute restrictions on means. For example, torture, I believe, is impermissible almost come what may. jks
Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
Chip Berlet wrote:
>
>
>
> The ends do not justify the means.
>
> -Chip
>
A point Hannah Arendt makes impressed me. If a question is posed in terms of ends & means, ends tautologically justify the means. One has to escape the ends/means 'problematic' rather than make the hopeless claim that ends don't justify means. If I need groceries, the end rather tautologically justifies using energy, muscle power and gasoline, to obtain those groceries.
Carrol
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030407/c6a92326/attachment.htm>