The end and the means

[shkrobius]

http://flying-bear.livejournal.com/763151.html?thread=13228047#t13228047

Exitus acta probat written by love sick Ovid's Phyllis in her letter to Demophoon is said to be the motto of the Inquisition, the Jesuits, or Machiavelli's demonic invention. The

Comments

[solomon2]

Excellent information, thank you!

The bottom line is that the abstract principle is absurd in its absolute generality. Likewise, it's negation is absurd!

A moral being must always analyze the ends and the means, and apply other moral principles to the problem.

[shkrobius]

This is the take of classical Judaism (each case should be considered on its own merit). Some immoral means are validated by the moral ends (one can steal, cheat, lie to save one's own or other's lives) and some are not (one cannot commit murder, idolatry, apostasy, or sexual perversion to save lives, including one's own). But even these valid acts are not "justified" in a moral sense. You do it on your own peril without seeking exoneration or leniency. Immoral acts do not become moral because one can commit such acts as the last resort. In this sense, the ends never justify the means.

[solomon2]

Here is my take on this. There are indeed grossly immoral acts (murder, etc), and those morality of which is questionable (applying moderate physical pressure during interrogations without causing sustained bodily injury, etc). It is proper and moral to take into account the (intended and unintended) consequences of each act, while deciding on its acceptability from moral standpoint. Mistakes can happen, they need to be remembered, analysed and taken into consideration aftewards. It is indeed proper and moral to accept full personal responsibility for such mistakes. On the other hand it is perfectly fine to educate others if it occurs that the moral problem was in fact resolved correctly.

[shkrobius]

The problem here is that "deciding on its acceptability from moral standpoint" very much depends on whether your ethics is consequentialist or deontological (duty-bound). I seem to be willing the thread the middle ground, like Ross, with his pluralistic deontology

[flying_bear]

Блестяще! Одержимость временем (будущее - частный случай) как универсальный механизм зла... Очень, очень близко. См. http://lit.lib.ru/i/irhin_w_j/fenix.shtml#ch15

[shkrobius]

My father used to say that the two most difficult things is not to make idols and think of today rather than tomorrow. It is a desperate fight; my whole nature craves of both. Thank you for understanding.

[solomon2]

Refusing to worry about the future is certainly acceptable as a personal choice. I do this often myself :) Yet, when the lives of others are at stake it is a moral duty to weight your own actions or inaction carefully. For example, is it moral for a captain of a ship to refuse to prepare for a gathering storm because it "does not yet exist"? I think, it is indeed immoral (besides being plainly stupid).

[shkrobius]

But then sailing is immoral, too, because there is a finite chance that the ship will sink despite all of these preparations and the captain endangers his crew. The captain is preparing for the storm because this storm can come today with some probability rather than because it will come in the future with 100% certainty. "Future" here is the domain of uncertainty rather than a temporal domain.

[solomon2]

Sailing might be immoral, granted, e.g. if this is a pirate ship. Then it might be a moral thing to let it sink!

The temporal aspect is not essential when speaking about consequences. For example, in the case of "domino effect" the spatial or logical arrangement of pieces might matter more...

What is essential, in my opinion, is that making a moral choice (performing the act of chosing regardless of the outcome) might be (in some circumstances) a moral duty (not choice!), but we have disagreed about this one already in one of our previous discussions :)