>Is the whole question "do the ends justify the means" on too high a
>level of abstaction? I tend to be suspicious of anyone who thinks the
>question, so phrased, is answerable. Don't you have to specify what end
>and what means, or at least particular classes of ends and means before
>the discussion becomes meaningful? Or is that too simplistic?
Simplistic is when you suggest that neither the end nor the means is significant until you have assessed the worthiness of the need that the end is proposed to meet. Yoshie suggests same with Hiroshima example.