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: TimF who wrote (6267)	5/23/2003 8:22:42 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

"if a minor case of unjust means could never be justified even by the most extreme and important of ends." The end of your philosophical road is nihilism, you don't have the courage of your convictions, you doubt your own mind and even doubt what you see with your own eyes. Keep your spirits up though, every scoffer, skeptic and smirker throughout history will be waiting to greet you at the end of your long road.

To: TimF who wrote (6267)	5/24/2003 4:15:33 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 7720

"if a minor case of unjust means could never be justified even by the most extreme and important of ends." I don't know that it can't be "justified". The sword justifies many things when it comes to that. The point is, that in any interdependent grouping of people we are all accountable to the value system of the group. In any question of ends and means there is no absolute objectivity and there is no absolute knowledge. Even reason itself is suborned to the subjective self interest and the natural limitations to which we are all heir. Thus, any person or group of people could certainly choose to believe the value of ends justifying the means (whether they think the end is "good" for the greater whole of humanity, or not). As part of a social group, one is necessarily urged by self interest to cooperate and to act within the accepted framework of values acknowledged by the group. There is thus a compelling incentive to do no "wrong" (as defined by the particular group) unless one can justify it by power or reason, or by appeal to group self interest. Even if one believes that some supernatural power knows and conveys moral dictums regardless of the interplay of circumstances...one still embraces these beliefs as a self interested, subjective, and prejudiced mortal. Therefore, by any particular value system the end may justify the means...but never to those hurt or offended, or whom simply believe otherwise. In the Globe and Mail today there was a story of, one, Walter Zepeda, who was forcibly strapped by family and friends to basement chairs to exorcise Satan from his body. What actually left his body after 7 days was nine litres of fluid--after which he died. The father got 4 years for manslaughter. They believed that the end justified the means because (I will suggest a reason that the paper did not attest)--a man's soul is more important than his freedom--or even his life. Within their particular religious environment they did no wrong because they pursued a righteous end... Of course, individuals are sacrificed every day by Governments for some "greater cause" which reflects a particular self-interest of agenda and value system. My personal opinion is that the freedom, well being, and existence of individuals is the proper consideration and that "means" must at all times acknowledge this priority of values. But, of course, in practice there are the good individuals (our guys) and the bad individuals (some other family, race, or country). Thus, in a world of savage self interest it becomes almost comical to seriously discuss whether or not it is right or wrong to sacrifice the only entity that ought to matter--the individual.