SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (2631)10/12/2006 1:24:07 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) of 10087
 
I do think that means can indeed be justified by the ends, but only if the good of the end is much better than the bad of the means, and also if the means are both necessary and sufficient to achieve the ends.

I would tilt the balance somewhat to the side of avoiding the bad means. Partially because the ends are always uncertain. The claimed ends might not be the real desired ends, or the desire might be real, but the ends might never be reached, or perhaps could be reached without the distasteful means. Even after taking in to account the uncertainties I probably would still tilt the balance to the side of avoiding the bad means, at least if "bad" means unjust, not just harmful or distasteful.

A real world example? I support the existence of taxes, because of the benefits that we derive from having a government and thus avoiding anarchy. Its possible that an extremely bad government (say that of Pol Pot) could be worse than some forms of anarchy. Its even theoretically possible that some form of anarcho-capitalist vision could work well, perhaps better than our current system, so there is some uncertainty that taxes will actually make things better. And of course you don't need anywhere near our current level of taxation to avoid anarchy. But the uncertainty is not enough to cause me to oppose any and all taxes, or to become an anarchist. Partially this is a form of conservatism, in the sense of not wanting to change a status quo that is pretty decent overall for an uncertain future. Partially this is because the history of anarchical situations, isn't very good (or very stable, anarchies can easily become authoritarian systems), but in any case the support of taxes is the support of a means that I see as wrong (taxes) in support of what I see as a positive aim (having at least minimal government).

You could combine the tax, and the government it supports in to one idea, and say since at least minimal government is a good thing that taxes are a good thing, and so define away the ends vs. means conflict, but I think it makes sense to consider them separately as well.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext