Actual left/right wing discussion Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: one_less who wrote (2637)	10/12/2006 1:44:58 PM
From: TimF	of 10087

I agree that the argument for a certain means based on the ends that could be achieved is often a faulty argument. Sometimes the claim about the ends is false, either deliberately a lie, or just a case where the means might not achieve the ends. Other times the ends themselves are not good, or are not a strong enough good to justify the means. I think that we should be wary and skeptical whenever anyone supports starting to use some odious means to achieve some end. But I also think that the ends do indeed justify the means in certain situations. Edit - Some people are have a utilitarian view of ethics. Some have a strict and strong natural rights view. My view is more of a blend. Looking at the example of taxes. I see them as a violation of natural rights, but at the same time I'm enough a utilitarian to accept this violation, since it brings with it important positives, including the ability to protect against other violations. An analogy could be drawn to interpreting the constitution, where someone might think a specific action or activity is unconstitutional but also think its necessary and support it with the argument that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." en.wikipedia.org

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next