Debate Championship V-6th & 7th Jan '07 - Page 3

Originally posted by: SmarterDesiKid

why do you suppose the goverment is doing this? It is doing this achieve its' goals, but in the proccess, hurting others...
Going to any limit to achieve it's goals....

Well,it is not at all necessary that while asking for your rights from the government you'd hurt any citizen;there are several other means of communication,for example:Newspapers and magazines.

I'd like to add a quotation here which would justify my thoughts and opinions.

"The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live.Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power.We have guided missiles and misguided men".-By Martin King Luther.

(Courtesy-Encarta Encyclopedia).

Originally posted by: ash_sabihey

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.

Are those right means from any angle? If the monarchy is being unfair to it's citizens, then it is the right of every citizen to fight, yes. But won't you agree with me when I say that "non violence" and right means are MUCH more effective? Let us consider the matter of independence of India... The moderates on one hand, and the extremists on the other. Through all means and methods, after fights and violence, it was eventually Gandhiji's path of Satyagraha that aided India to independence!

Just imagine, if today, in Independent India, you had to go out and say that India achieved independence by unfair means, it puts a scar on the beautiful respect we have for ourselves!

The means DO matter. It is better not to do at all, rather than achieve by wrong means...

Just for the info of the Contestants:

There are 2 hours and 12 minutes remaining for the Championship.

Please post all rebuttals and closing statements before that.

The post will close at 9 AM EST (7.30 PM IST) sharp.

Originally posted by: SmarterDesiKid

More reasons...questions actually. Doing something bad for you happiness...

1. If you were to kill 50 unknown people to save a 100, would you? Let's say the 100 would give you a million dollars each...would you then?

2. If you had to go against your beliefs, and traditions to achieve your goals...would you?

3. Would you damage your health, smoke, drugs, to get into a popular group of people?

Point is all clear now. So doing something bad for your needs is not the right way to do it, so the Ends don't justify the means.

"The end  justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end." - A Leon Trotsky quote (Russian Communist theorist and agitator, a leader in Russia's October Revolution in 1917. 1879-1940) ( http://en.thinkexist.com)

I think for all the examples you have quoted I would like to state that how can you justify something which is not right.   In the context of your life being popular with the right crowd or making money, these are not what we call things for the greater good and a morally correct end.

We can only talk about the end justifying the means when we are trying to to talk about achieving a correct ends.  I think your question was would you kill 50 unknown people to save a 100.   History is replete of examples of this.  In fact even Krishna said to Arjuna, do your duty , even if those on the battlefield are your cousins and family.  They are making general society suffer and they must be destroyed.

I woul dlike to quote some convincing points..to let u decide..the easy way!

The ends never justify the means. Not ever, not under any circumstances. There can be a perfectly harmless "end" or goal that is achieved by means that are not in any way bad, but even in such cases, the goal is not what justifies the means to that end, or keeps the means from being wrong: the nature of the means is what does that. Sure you have to evaluate a set of actions in the context of the goal they lead to (or more properly, the motivation behind them), but this still does not equate to justifying the means by the ends.(Continued..below)

Courtesy:(http://www.youdebateit.com/score.php?score=199)

Here,below..i m quoting..some viewpoints of different people..who support what's right!

Author: NaturalCyborg (192.5.109.---)
Date:   12-02-05 15:29

"To have peace on earth we must use peaceful means...peace ought not be a distant goal, an end we seek; rather it ought to be the first order of business on every legislative agenda. We must use peaceful means to achieve a peaceful end. And until we do, we will have war."

I'm not sure what relevance peace has to the topic other than its being a particular end that is of interest to you. I also never understood the desire for world peace. Its very conception involves such a huge disconnect from reality that it baffles me that anyone would take it seriously. As long as there is competition for resources among being with squishy brains housed in breakable skulls, there will be war. It's just not even remotely possible to get rid of war. The only context in which you could possibly se it is if a small enough population were able to sustain itself in some context (most likely in space) completely separate from the rest of humanity. Furthermore, the population would have to remain small. As soon as it got to a certain size, or any dissention in the group arose, the population would have to be divided so that the resulting populations would always be cooperative and self-sufficient…. Peace? It's called leaving people the heck alone.

The answer to the original question is tremendously simple: the ends never justify the means. Not ever, not under any circumstances. There can be a perfectly harmless "end" or goal that is achieved by means that are not in any way bad, but even in such cases, the goal is not what justifies the means to that end, or keeps the means from being wrong: the nature of the means is what does that. Sure you have to evaluate a set of actions in the context of the goal they lead to (or more properly, the motivation behind them), but this still does not equate to justifying the means by the ends.

Example:

If we are discussing the means fabricated by the Bush regime for the imperialistic invasion of Iraq, the answer, of course, is NO. The means do not justify whatever results have taken place as this conflict continues to evolve. A worse tragedy has occurred as the result of this tragic conflict. The neocons were fully aware -- I can't say the same about Bush -- that this unwarranted intrusion would result in the wholesale salughter of thousands.


It's already been revealed that both Bush and Blair in a memo -- previous to the actual invasion of Iraq -- "...laid out an elaborate plan by both men to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for this war was phony."

The ends do not justify the means. Of course, it was Bush's intention to destroy an entire nation on the basis of a deliberate deception, without caring whether or not this war resulted in the mass killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, over 2000 American soldiers killed, and 15 thousand wounded as a result of a deception.

As for using torture as a method for gaining evidence, wouldn't it be better to offer something like immunity instead? Anyone will say anything if they are placed in a situation where they are exposed to physical, mental, or emotional pain and deprivation.

There are far more humane ways, such as medical drugs, that can induce someone to reveal evidence without torture. Even getting someone drunk -- although they might wake up with a horrible hangover -- is far more humane than the use of extreme, violent phsysical torture.

Courtesy:(http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?f=33&i=14567 1&t=145558#reply_145671)

Thanks.

Edited by Evilgenius_S.S™ - 17 years ago

Does the end justify the means?

A young boy watches the passers by, waiting for his opportunity. He thought back to his little sisters crouched under the old bridge, covered in old rags, the youngest with a bad cough, as the sharp winter wind hit his face, cutting through the thin shirt he wore, he'd sold his jacket the week before.
The baker walked back into his shop and the boy quickly rose and walked past the stand, knocking two small rolls into his pocket. Guilt immediately gripped his little heart, he hated stealing, but he had tried everything else. The orphanage was full, there was no work for a boy of eight and winter's teeth had already sunk into the drab slums of London. He slipped down the snowy bank under the bridge and handed the rolls to his sisters, their dull blue eyes light up with childish glee as they quickly eat them.

Does the end justify the means?

A soldier stands in line, waiting, his spear gripped tightly in his hand as the king walks down the row, examining the troops. This king, who has caused so much pain and suffering, so much death. Including his own brother, was coming within his reach. He had been promised that his family would be cared for if he just got the job done, the king's son, his own son, was paying for this to be done. The prince promised justice, and protection for the peasants. He shifted his weight slightly as the king got closer, he stopped to speak to one guard and then took a few more slow steps, the guard twisted his wrist slightly and then plunged the spear into the king's chest.


Since time immemorial the debate on ends and means is a major topic in moral philosophy. Hindu mythology is full of incidents involving such debate in many of which the gods themselves were active players. Seduction by women was used to deprive the asuras of their share of the nectar of immortality (Amruta), to make Bhasmasura destroy himself, and to disturb Vishwamitra's penance.
Lord Rama's killing of Vali is another instance of the use of unfair means. In all these cases,to a casual by stander it would appear to be the use of an improper means has been justified by all the religious leaders on the ground that the person who suffered was either a bad person or had done something wrong in the past and his Karma was catching up with him in its inscrutable ways, that evil had to be conquered and it is necessary for the betterment of society even if nt so moral methodes were opposed.

Even in contempary times, Gandhiji's satyagraha methods were faulted. Gandhiji was clear in his mind that a law which, in one's opinion, is evil ought to be resisted and defied, and not doing so implies siding with evil. To the British this was a wrong means to achieve a right end and even today governments in our country are telling all agitators the same thing.

I would like to conclude by saying the moral and political debate in relation to important societal issues must move on from not whether the end justifies the means but to what end we should be attempting to secure. An end that secures the common good for all is possible and whatever the means used to acieve it is justified.

Thank you everyone for taking out the time to participate in the DC! Time is up and now this post will be closed.

A separate post will go up soon for the Judges to post their votes and comments.

Regards,
MNMS and T.