Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (6263)	5/23/2003 5:47:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

It was a hypothetical. I was writing about possibilities in terms of how I might have responded if I was in a different environment that existed before I was born. The decision I would make now would be against the policy. I was considering if it was possible that I would think differently about it if I was an adult in the late 50s and early to mid 60s when the policies started to emerge, instead of being born in the late 60s. Doing something "wrong" may, I am sure, be rationalized in as many ways as human imagination may wander And as I said before I would be very reluctant to do something that I thought was morally wrong for a practical benefit, near or far, small or large. Generally I don't think the ends justify the means, but I can't say 100% that I would never choose questionable or slightly immoral means if I truly thought that a large and important practical gain would be made using these means. But even under those circumstances (great and important ends, means that are not horrible) I would be reluctant to try to claim the end justifies the means. Last time this subject came up you pointed out the possibility that the ends that one is trying to achieve may not really be achieved. If you went back in time and killed Hitler someone else just as bad might have run the Nazi's or perhaps the communists would have taken over Europe. An attempt to bring a good thing about through foul means (or fair means as well) might not bring it about. An attempt to prevent a calamity might not be necessary (the calamity might not have happened even without your action), or sufficient (it might happen despite your action, or possibly even because of it). But for the sake of argument, imagine a hypothetical situation where you could save the world and all life on it, by unjustly imprisoning one may for a week. Would you do it? I ask because I want to know if in your opinion, the end never justify the means because we can't be sure of the ends, or if even in cases were we are sure (more then you could normally be sure of anything in reality), if a minor case of unjust means could never be justified even by the most extreme and important of ends. Tim