The short answer is "yes." Both Trotsky and Dewey make this explicit, and it's obvious that consequentialism requires you to evaluate means by their consequences. jks
<P>
<P> <B><I>"H. Curtiss Leung" <hncl@panix.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Do Trotsky or Dewey (or any other consequentialists) then argue against the<BR>radical separation of "ends" and "means" on similar grounds? e.g., since <BR>there are means that may effect an end in the short term but adversely<BR>impunge upon them in the long term, one should look to the sum consequences<BR>of an act rather than simply consider if it effects one "end"?<BR><BR>> The "ends justify the means' only if you are a consequentialist, and that's <BR>> a controversial theory. Anyway, not even then. This is sloppy talk. People <BR>> should reread the Trotsky-Dewey debate (Their Moral and Ours), in which two <BR>> parties from different perspectives, both consequentialists who think that <BR>> what makes an action right is that it promotes the good, agree that good <BR>> ends do not justify any means whatsoever, and that there are means that <BR>> undermine any good that might come out of their use. And then there are <BR>> nonconsequentialists like me who think that in most circumstances there are <BR>> near-absolute restrictions on means. For example, torture, I believe, is <BR>> impermissible almost come what may. jks<BR>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailsig/*http://tax.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - File online, calculators, forms, and more