[lbo-talk] Re: Ends/Means

[H. Curtiss Leung]

Let me get this straight: means are a necessary conditions for ends, so means
are therefore always justified.  Is that the line of argument?  Because if
it is, then all it says is that there must always be means, not that 
*any particular* means are therefore justified.  To use the example you
cite, you could walk to the store instead of talking the car.

Where there are several means to effect an end, the question is how does one
choose between them, what are the best means to effect the desired outcome?


> 
> 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.
>