The ends justify the means.

[sarisataka]

The ends justify the means.- is this statement compatible with Democratic principles?

2 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, the need to achieve our goals is worth any cost
	0 (0%)
	Sometimes, it may not be pleasant but a greater good may mean we have to go against what we stand for
	1 (50%)
	No, if we cannot succeed in achieving our goals without holding true to our beliefs we need to find another way
	0 (0%)
	Never, this is the philosophy that led us into the Patriot act and unjust wars. Better to honorably fail than become Republicans
	1 (50%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Electric Monk]

1. Fearing not I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach

Ahh, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now

[fadedrose]

2. We're a bit socialistic

but NOT communists...

[lpbk2713]

3. That would seem to rationalize any illegal or unethical activity.

If I was OK with that I'd be on the other side.

[el_bryanto]

4. Wouldn't it depend on the end and the means?

Some ends are worth sacrificing for; like for example, I wish we taxed the wealthy a bit more to pay for better social services.

Bryant

[sarisataka]

6. I am thinking mostly about elections

Say for example polls show 75% chance of losing the Senate. But if ACA gets reversed it goes to 60% keep the Senate. Should Dems vote with Repubs knowing the chance of getting ACA back will be about nil.

Totally hypothetical but illustrates my question.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. Friedrich Nietzsche

[CFLDem]

7. Sometimes you just gotta get down and dirty.

[BainsBane]

8. Depends entirely what you're talking about

There is no way to give a reasonable blanket answer. Do the ends justify the means to save your own children? Are people really going to answer no? Are you going to answer no, when you champion the right to self defense? There is obviously some other thread this relates to that I don't know about, but the poll doesn't specify. Therefore it is impossible to answer honestly.

[sarisataka]

9. Ah BB, you are smart

Thereare several threads i have seen lately with flexible ethics. No neef to single one out as i will continue to lurk; I'm not looking for ammo for a purity test.

I just wonder, are there uncrossable lines? Would we support voter ID in districts where it will hurt Republicans more? Should a candidate be anti-choice if it is the only hope to win a seat? ...

Though outside of politics, you ask a good question. Yes there is a limit of sorts to the length i would go to protect my family. If saving them guaranteed the deaths of other innocents i would not make that choice. I wouldthen save all or die trying. I couldn't live with myself any other way.

[BainsBane]

10. Well, I think there is a difference between being opportunistic

and adjusting one's moral position to the circumstances. As you note, protecting your family. Few would argue against your right to do that. Truthfully, you don't know if you wouldn't take the life of innocents to save your own family. Without being in that situation it's impossible to know. I expect many people would.

There are likely political circumstances as well. Redistricting: ideally it should be nonpartisan, but if you have to work within an unfair system, you do the best you can. Obama on taking certain kinds of money. Should he have played the moral high ground for principles sake and allowed McCain or Romney to stockpile cash and get elected? I don't think so. Being a martyr to one's principals isn't useful either. I think such decisions have to be made in the context of the situation at hand. Practicality has to play a role because unrealistic idealism can allow far worse circumstances to arise. We must deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it to be.

Voter ID: No. It makes no sense to support it in some districts and not others. That doesn't even serve mercenarian goals because it's far too transparent, in addition to being just plain wrong.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. Each mean is an end unto it's own self.

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 02:24 AM - Edit history (1)

The means are an end unto their self.

[rrneck]

12. That depends on the means we have to sacrifice to achieve our ends. nt

[jazzimov]

13. Depends on the "Ends" and the "Means".

For instance, if an "all-knowing, all powerful" computer is programmed to end all disease, we can all agree that is a justifiable "Ends". However, if the computer decides that the only way to achieve this means is to destroy mankind (thereby ending all disease), then we can agree that in this case the Ends did NOT justify the Means.

However, if the End result is to solidify Social Security and save millions of lives by increasing taxes on the wealthy so that they can one less suit of clothes or some such other thing they'll hardly notice - in the meantime raising the overall economy which means they will make moree money in the end and actually afford that extra suit.....

I think that in that particular case the Ends DEFINITELY justify the Means.

Therefore, I think that the question you raise is an invalid one - but if you demand an answer I would have to say "It depends...."

[LostOne4Ever]

14. Yes, the ends justify the means

Ideally I want to say no, but this is reality not some Hollywood movies. Sometimes we are faced with hard choices and must make compromise. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.

If sticking to your principles causes you not to get the change you want accomplished; or worse yet ,causes the positive change that was made in the past to be redacted, then your principles mean shit. Results are what matter. But, congratulations, your pride is intact and that is more important than making sure the poor have a roof over their heads right?

However, I do want to add one caveat. One should always ensure that there is no way of accomplishing the desired ends without having compromise ones values first, or at the very least to make sure that you break as few eggs as possible.

If there exists any possible way not to compromise and you didn't even attempt to find it then you compromised your principles out of laziness and not because the end result justified it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. yes ! no option for this.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. You don't have to go against your beliefs to have the end justify the means. no

option that fits this