Circular Justification: "Ends justify means justify ends" &mdash Part 4
There is considerable difference between justification and the application of sound judgment, the distinction between proving one's choices and actions correct, and perceiving what is appropriate in the moment. Although, of itself, justification is a not without good purpose, it is too often employed in the absence of good judgment as a means to presume correctness or excuse error. Seeking justification for one's choices and actions is inevitably a tricky business, requiring the most earnest of assessments without ego or presumption, and most specifically, without established belief nor idealism distorting the interpretation of context, appropriateness and significance. Invariably, whenever ego, beleif or idealism enters the equation, one risks making sweeping presumptions, attempting to render things appropriate after the fact, and often upon dubious and simplistic criteria: a delusion of circular reasoning.
Neither "Ends" nor "Means"
How does one avoid either error? In the real world, there is no simple algebraic equation around which one may always build one's choices and action with the assurance of certain outcome. Variables always exist, not merely in the shifting instances of the moment, but likewise in the relative morals and ethics which themselves may shift with the changing of conditions and opportunity. "Means" and "ends" must be placed within this uncertain and mercurial environment, and these likewise do not represent singular fixed points, but a haze of interrelationships of causality and momentary significance and impact. What does all this mean? In short, that presumption and assumption are suited to the hypothetical realm, but have no place in the application of sound judgement, and less still in the assessment of choices and actions past.
Set aside presumptions and set values and examine aspects both in isolation and in relative context, of themselves and as ends and means; make assessments rather than justifications. Do not cling to absolutes of self, of ideals or belief: such are delusions. All things are relative and when one frees oneself to perceive them as such, real values are revealed, the facts of the shifting moment are laid bare, and those brief opportunities for action may be seized with certainty.
If one applies the Three Rays of Enlightenemnt, these aspects will be made clear, and one need never seek justification for one's means and ends, as they will stand by themselves as proof enough.
Neither "Ends" nor "Means"
How does one avoid either error? In the real world, there is no simple algebraic equation around which one may always build one's choices and action with the assurance of certain outcome. Variables always exist, not merely in the shifting instances of the moment, but likewise in the relative morals and ethics which themselves may shift with the changing of conditions and opportunity. "Means" and "ends" must be placed within this uncertain and mercurial environment, and these likewise do not represent singular fixed points, but a haze of interrelationships of causality and momentary significance and impact. What does all this mean? In short, that presumption and assumption are suited to the hypothetical realm, but have no place in the application of sound judgement, and less still in the assessment of choices and actions past.
Set aside presumptions and set values and examine aspects both in isolation and in relative context, of themselves and as ends and means; make assessments rather than justifications. Do not cling to absolutes of self, of ideals or belief: such are delusions. All things are relative and when one frees oneself to perceive them as such, real values are revealed, the facts of the shifting moment are laid bare, and those brief opportunities for action may be seized with certainty.
If one applies the Three Rays of Enlightenemnt, these aspects will be made clear, and one need never seek justification for one's means and ends, as they will stand by themselves as proof enough.