Skip wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:53 am
My objection to "winning at all costs" is that it's different
from "the end justifies the means."
[... I would never agree to "all's fair" in love, or even in a struggle for survival.
I take it then that you believe that the end justifies the means, except you hold that there are no ends, and you phrase this concept as: For the greater good we will make certain compromises, even if they are immoral. ...or some such ideas to that effect.
I believe Mr. D. J. Trump agrees with you on this, as evidenced by his many lawsuits, failure to pay his lawyers, contractors, etc., artful con-jobs, and so forth. The "greater good" he would claim, "is the profit
I will make." "You ask why I do certain things," he has said to reporters. "It's because it sells !!"
What I meant by" ends" when I used the word are intentions, aspirations, aims, ambitions, causes, and purposes.
"I agree with you that actions taken serve to constrain the next decision. You are wise to be conscious of that.
You write, Skip, "Means are justified - or excused - in cases where the desired outcome is presumed morally just and overweaningly important.
What's usually excused is a smaller wrong in order to achieve a greater right. More on the order of breaking eggs to make an omelette. "
My question for you is, Do you sanction or give permission to this excusing of the "ways and means" - to use your phrase - in the name of committing "small wrongs" or "breaking a few eggs," even though the collateral damage (to employ a euphemism often seen) causes grievous and tragic suffering?
I have always considered you to be a man of good will, and good character, Skip.
Manipulators and exploiters frequently live out the philosophy that "The end justifies the means I use, or am using." Noble ends that have been cited for "breaking a few eggs" - or heads - are "Freedom," "Liberty," Peace," "Defense," "the Socialist cause," "Maintaining the world order," "Police Action," etc.etc.