Statement:
"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.
Other pointers:
• 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!
Quoting guideline:
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 - 17 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™ - 17 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.
(Courtesy :http://www.mackido.com/Thought/EndsAndMeans.html)
The purpose of a Debate is not to go against each other's views but to give a clear understanding of what you think.
As far as the topic is concerned,I'd like to begin it with the quotation from Encarta Encyclopedia.
Wisdom denotes the persuing of the best ends by the best means-Francis Hutcheson(1694-1746)
Every human has certain goals and aims in life which he wants to fulfill because that's his only ambition.There is always something to look forward in life:whether it be you dreams,family or career-motives are always present there.In order to achieve a goal,man has to go through different stages and aspects to achieve the ultimate goals.To do this,he might choose the wrong path because now he would be ambitious.According to me,the proverb"Do the Ends justify the means?",stands on three basic pillars which ought to give the resultant output.
1)Means:They are infact the integral part and highlights how and through which way you tend to achieve something.
2)Causes:Well,every aim or what you dream has a cause behind it.For example,if you wish to secure A grades in your exams,perhaps the cause behind it that you want to prove how capable you are,and you can do anything if you are determined.
3).Ends:The most important part-the result or the outcome.After crossing all the stages,the last but not the least is the "Ends"-for which you struggle and work hard.
In my opinion,the ends justify the means because when both the ends are met,the task is complete.For instance,if you are invited in a high-class society dinner,you come back home and the only thing you do is to praise how exquisitive the interior was and how delicious the food was.Nobody thinks how the person who has invited hundred people in the banquet has become so rich and famous?.How did he achieve such a high position?.Maybe he used some illegal methods-no body thinks about it.Therefore,it clearly illustrates that in our present society upon which our social life is based,people tend to look at your present situations and doesnot even give a single thought to your past.
The purpose of mine of mentioning the quote above is that the if you work hard and put your 100% in achieving the means,the ends itself will ultimatelty turn into the best.
So long as men worship the Caesers and Napoleans,Caesers and Napoleans will arise to make them miserable.
(Courtesy:"Ends and Means"(1937),a book originally written by Aldous Huxley,a British novelist and essayist.)
If a common man continues to bear all the cruelty of the kings and queens,then obviously they would double it every time.A very true example for this is that the farmers and peasants in the urban areas work hard from dawn till dusk in order to grow crops and earn their livelihood,while on the other hand,the goverment impose high taxes upon them,which after paying,there is hardly left for them to prosper in lives and they tend to remain in the same conditions for the rest of their lives.This is not the end,this trend is continued in the same manner passing from one generation to the other generation until another Mr.India is born.Yes,a perfect example for this is the storyline of the superhit movie Mr.India in which the lead actor didnot have even a single piece of bread to feed his nephews,because of the cruelty of a big gang.Then,through supernatural powers he takes away the food from those people who are too much extravagant and give it to the poors who doesnot even know when they would have the next piece of roti.The mentioning of this extraction is this that society is the base upon which Bollywood stands,in some cases films tend to bring to light the present circumstances of the society which shows that the problem of unjust is prevailing in our society.Although,in some cases,it is considered that through wrong means a poor man snatches his bread and butter from the cruel monarchy.IF the monarchy or the governement is being unfair to its citizens,then its the right of every citizen to fight and achieve democracy throught right means.
If the ends donot justify the means,then,every Page 3 celebrity would have his/her biography to write on.But the bitter truth is that we just want to know who wore what,which celebrity attended which party and who had the best attire.Even if in magazines we come across debatal topics,we tend to turn the page because "Who Cares!".Igoring the facts will not change them.
Well,I'd like to comment upon the Evil Genius' opinion about the Partition of India and Pakistan.The Muslims demanded for a separate nation,therefore,the sub-continent was divided into two separate nations.In this case,the ends clearly justified the means.The Muslims hardwork and contribution(Means)justified because they got a separate homeland(Ends).About the patriotism and how the inhabitants hate each other or want peace is the aftermath of the Independence,which I feel is not a part of this Debate-Think about it.
Dear Maryam(MNMS) and Tanaaz(T.),
My post above is not the opening speech for my Team,instead it is my personal opinion and a part of debate.Please don't consider as an opening statement.Hope you'll take this into consideration.Two members of my team has already done it,and I am not one of them.Thanks!
Sabihey.