"H. Curtiss Leung" <hncl at panix.com> wrote:Do Trotsky or Dewey (or any other consequentialists) then argue against the radical separation of "ends" and "means" on similar grounds? e.g., since there are means that may effect an end in the short term but adversely impunge upon them in the long term, one should look to the sum consequences of an act rather than simply consider if it effects one "end"?
> 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
___________________________________
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/20030407/295b7ab1/attachment.htm>