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

[dennett]

а у вас есть какой-то конкретный пример - или это просто экзегеза?

[shkrobius]

It is exegesis. To discuss this principle, either endorsing or condemning it, one has to agree on its meaning. As I see it, consequentialist meaning is read into a deontological principle, with the disasterous result. Specifics would only get in a way of this observation. It strikes me that many people are confused about this principle precisely due to this slight of hand, which is subtle and requires exegesis to untangle. See, for example, this thread, http://flying-bear.livejournal.com/763151.html?thread=13228047#t13228047

[dennett]

мне кажется, тут основной нюанс в смысле слова оправдать

[shkrobius]

http://shkrobius.livejournal.com/177660.html?thread=986108#t986108

[shkrobius]

Yes, this is ineed the crux.

>> вряд ли люди, которые принимают критикуемый вами лозунг, считают, что плохое средство, если его употребить для достижения хорошей цели, становится хорошим. Нет, для них оно по прежнему остается плохим - они _исходят_ из того, что оно плохое.

I wish you were right, but this is no longer true.

>>Если я совершил запрещенное действие - я виновен. Если я совершил разрешенное действие - я невиновен, оправдан.

By whom? What is this station that grants complete exoneration and absolution? Absolution from people's judgment does not absolve one from G-d's judgment.

>>только ли РАЗРЕШАЮТ священные книги злое средство для достижения хорошей цели - или же ПООЩРЯЮТ.

It is only permitted.

>>какой тут статус МОЖНО ли красть? или же ДОЛЖНО?
If you are weak in your faith, steal. The books cannot decide for you how much faith you have at your trial, only you can. They tell that you have to save life one way or another.

[dennett]

--I wish you were right, but this is no longer true

[solomon2]

>расчет очевидный - если зло средства перевешивает благо цели - действие совершать нельзя - если благо цели перевешивает зло средства - действие совершать обязательно<

Расчет далеко не всегда очевиден. Мера добра и зла не обязательно аддитивна. Есть зло, которое невозможно скомпенсировать никаким рассчетом. Если смешать бочку дерьма и бочку варенья, то получим две бочки дерьма.

Я отстаиваю гораздо более слабый тезис: есть ситуации когда рассчет все-таки возможен.

[dennett]

эти оговорки справедливы, я с ними согласен и подразумеваю их как очевидные