"Do Ends Justify the Means?"
Introducing the teams we have
The "FOR" Team:
Arguing "Yes, Ends justify the Means."
The "Against" Team:
Arguing "No, Ends do not justify the Means"
Please present facts and examples as much as possible to make your debate the winning one!
The rules are:
The opening remark is to be 500-1000 words, one member from each team will do that and can prepare in advance.
A closing statement again from each side, 500-1000 words at the end of 48 hours.
Each side will have a color of their fonts – the 'For' side will post in Navy Blue – (# 000099); the 'Against' team will post in Dark Red (# 990000). Let us know if you have different preferences.
References/Quoting from websites, encyclopaedias is highly appreciated and will gain you extra marks. Make sure to refer them in your posts too.
You will all of course be civil and courteous to each other. Inability to do so might result in deduction of marks.
Use proper English. You can use common net lingo but do not argue in gangsta language or MSN language. Do not write 'one word response' that is just your reaction e.g. 'Duh!' or 'Puh-leaze' by itself. Follow it up with some fact or logic or insight.
Use pictures to demonstrate something and not as ornamental value. What we want is your eloquence not photo-editorial skills.
• The point of debate is express your point of view precisely and yet thoroughly – not proving other POV wrong or make other party admit they were wrong or having the last word. If at any point, in any part of the agreement, you realize that you have said all you could say…it is perfectly alright to move on to the next part f the topic. Do not take matters round and round just because you want to have the last word.
• Smileys are condiments, not the main course.
• Realize that this is all for fun so whatever the judgment, do not take it personally and PM judges with your disagreement or disapproval.
• Above all, have fun!
When quoting your opponent or your team mate, please write outside the quote box. Judges will only read the material outside the box –in grey background as yours. If the quote already has a quote, please delete all previous quotes other than what you are referring to.
We will be having three positions to award:
-Winner of DC V
-Runner-up of DC V
-Winning Team of DC V
This championship appreciates team work. Although you will shine in your own way but it is nice when there is a constant flow in the arguments of all the team members. So use the PM service. You can also look at the previous championships [listed in Kaal-Sandook post] for familiarity.
TIME: Starting from Saturday, Jan 6 07, 9 AM EST (7.30 PM IST)
Closing at Monday, Jan 8 07, 9 AM EST (7:30 PM IST)
This topic will be closed until Debate Championship day. Any participant from above list can start with their opening statement. Whoever logs in first can get started.
And best of luck to all of you Looking forward for tough rebuttals and arguments.
T. ,Mythili Kiran and MNMS.
Edited by MNMS - 13 years ago
Well,To start with...
As someone rightly said : "It is not What you achieve! It is..How you achieve!!!"
Do ends really justify the means?
The simplest answer to this is "NO!".Why am i saying this?Basically,what this phrase actually means is that does it really matter that by which means/procedures u achieve your goals(ends).?Having achieved your goal matters ? OR the means by which you achieve them? If you achieve something ,your goal maybe,by some bad means ...so is it justified?So basicaly what it says is...(in my case),that if you achieve your goals by some bad means ,unfair means then is it worth it? is it justified?
So...the answer to this is "NO"!! Its really not worth it..its simply ethically wrong to achieve ur goals by some bad means...! Ok..u may achieve whatever u have wanted to..but still...who knows how long that thing,that success is going to last!That success u wanted ..maynot last that much long..it may fade away with time..But...Ur guilt inside U is not going to leave U! that's going to b with U forever!!! Your inner-self would keep on realising you that whatever u may had achieved but still...the means are wrong.......!!!they can be ethically wrong,legally.....!!
If i take it in this sense only,that achieveing good by bad means is not worth it,then there is one example that i wanna quote here which is full proof of this thing that having achieved your goals by bad means does give u timely success but not inner peace...
Example is of Partition of India and Pakistan to gain independence.Their or Our goal was to simply achieve a land of peace..yes..not a piece of land ut a land of Peace...where there is nothing but peace only between the people.We used weapons of war...almost everything that could b used....to partition the two very same countries..in almost every sense....!! result:We came out successful..we did gain independence ....but independence ....only for our people...not for their hearts!! what means did we apply? we used weapons,,destruction was there....what not! we did came out successful..but...still......instead of 'closeness'..we have distances..,instead of 'love',we have 'hatred'! Instead of' peace'..we have 'wars'!------This is the result of achieveing good(independence),through bad(weapons) means..which's not at all justified!Doing Partition in itself is a bad means...if we take it as other view also..!Having divided something is in itself,a wrong thing...............because Power,strength lies in being as a 'Whole'....not in some deteriorated form.What's the point here is that the wrong means we used for independence........was 'the very thought of Partition'!!!!!Edited by Evilgenius_S.S™ - 13 years ago
TOPIC: Does the End Justify the Means?
"The end justifies the means" is a saying coined by the great political thinker Machiavelli in his book The Prince.
This maxim encompasses two beliefs: (courtesy: Wikipedia)
What about a starving man? Is it wrong for him to steal from a rich man who squanders money? Is it wrong for him to fight for his survival not depriving anyone of anything… (Depriving a rich man of the food he would have wasted cannot be considered deprivation!)
I disagree..!If someone steals for his god,his survival...then morally and ethically its wrong!! But it can only b right in his eyes only! He thinks its right,thats why he's doing it!Only God is there to provide food,shelter,basic things to everyone..then why not trust him?? Why follow the evil path?The reason is lack of ur belief in God! It means that your very own belief is weak...!!!Your are weak in your religion!Because at the end of the day,its only"U" who is answerable to "yourself"...
I would like to quote here some really good points in this regard..as it is..
One of the toughest things I deal with (philosophically) is when I am discussing things with people and they do not understand the concept that "the ends can not justify the means" -- or even worse, when they just believe that it can. They want their goals so bad that they will compromise their beliefs to get there (and probably achieve the wrong goals in the process).
Put yourself into any "evil" tyrants head in the world throughout history -- and they believed that the ends justified the means. I have a hard time believing that most of them THOUGHT they were just pure evil (whether they were or not is a separate issue). I imagine that most of them just thought they were doing good -- they just believed that the ends (their utopia) justified the means with which they got there (usually taking rights and freedoms, tyrannized the innocent and so on). They wanted harmony and control at all costs and believed that would be good for society (and themselves) -- and the means was just a necessary reality.
Think of Adolph Hitler -- what did he really believe? He believed that the rights of the many outweighed the rights of the few (the tyranny of the masses). That Europe and the Jews were responsible for the depression and Germany's situation. So he felt that taking over was necessary. That eliminating the enemies through fear and even murder was acceptable. He probably believed that the final solution was justified because of the great harmony a homogenous society would offer. Of course we know him as a murdering genocidal threat to humanity -- but why? Because the ends can not justify the means -- his good intents (to empower Germany and his ideals) are irrelevant -- his actions are what mattered, and they were wrong.
This gets into my other little philosophical altruism -- that "you are what you do". It doesn't matter what you think are, or wish you were -- it matters what you are doing. If you steal, for whatever reasons, then you are a thief. If you assault someone, or intimidate someone, then you are those actions as well. All of your actions define who you are at a given time in your life. The trick is to stop doing those actions that you don't like, or that aren't the actions of a person that you want to be. Do the actions of a person that you want to be (charity, compassion, forgiveness) and you are that kind of person too. You are what you do.
You can look at Ho Chi Mihn, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim, Sadam Hussein or any present day tyrant (or past one) and it almost always comes down to the same thing -- they tried to do good (in their minds), but their means sucked. They freed themselves from one tyranny by creating a worse one. They believed that the first tyranny was wrong, and needed to be stopped, that the people were downtrodden, that the evil rich were taking more than what they thought was fair, the masses were exploited, that wrongs were being done, and so on. According to many their ends (goals) were noble. They were righteous. Yet they rationalized their actions -- war, extermination of their enemies (who would take them back to that "bad" place), fear, murder -- whatever means it took to achieve their ends -- usually to stop the same. They were hypocrites that believed that the actions of the other side justified their own actions -- or worse. Once they started down a path it was hard to stop. They had to compromise their beliefs (in compassion, humanity, etc. -- the MEANS) -- and by the time they achieved their ends, they had no principles/beliefs left (if they even started with them). They failed because they believed their ends justified the means -- and that corruption ate them alive.
Look at the failures and violence being perpetuated today. This is all around the world. The Jews were wrong in how they took over Israel -- and the Palestinians were wrong in how they fought back. Look at the IRA. They are rightly protesting against what they see as an enslavement (or occupation) by a foreign government. You may not agree with their view -- but the point is that they do. Their goals aren't wrong -- freeing North Ireland -- it is the means which is wrong. The bombing of innocents (even the innocent soldiers of that occupying force) is a means with which they are trying to achieve the ends (and many other nefarious and ugly means). They feel justified because of the means with which the other side (England) has used to keep what it sees as a noble ends (protecting the rights of its citizens, civilizing Ireland, protecting it's property and so on). Both sides goals may be noble -- but that can not forgive the actions done in the name of their respective goals. They are the sum of their actions -- not the sum of their goals
To sum it up..all i can say is
What is going to define who your life is NOT what you've achieved (like some naively think), those are like possessions (that you can't take with you). What is going to define you is how you achieved those things. On your deathbed you are going to want to look back at your life and realize that it is better to have tried and failed using the right means, than to have succeeded using the wrong ones.
Topic started by MNMS
Last replied by Morgoth