tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post5517466417748282724..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Do the ends justify the means?Larry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-21492186345372439192012-12-13T16:23:54.866-07:002012-12-13T16:23:54.866-07:00I've responded here: Ethics, meta-ethics, deat...I've responded here: <a href="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2012/12/ethics-and-meta-ethics.html" rel="nofollow">Ethics, meta-ethics, death, and killing</a>Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-25003909963439514922012-12-09T19:48:32.003-07:002012-12-09T19:48:32.003-07:00I think a ‘radical honesty’ is called for.
I'...<i>I think a ‘radical honesty’ is called for.</i><br /><br />I'm all for radical honesty. :-)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-47049697758460694752012-12-09T19:46:59.127-07:002012-12-09T19:46:59.127-07:00A considered and thoughtful reply, TO. I will have...A considered and thoughtful reply, TO. I will have to consider your remarks carefully, and respond after all my final papers are complete on Wednesday.<br /><br />There are some points I would like to see expanded. <br /><br /><i>'[D]o the ends justify the means' is asked in the context of sacrifices, attacking the lack of protection given to the individual in some ethical arguments: How many people can we kill to make the world a better place for the rest?</i><br /><br />I don't necessarily think that that is the point of pragmatism. But sometimes, perhaps, we might indeed have to kill people to make the world a better place. May we kill the tyrant? His soldiers? His supporters?<br /><br /><i>Modern history offers its own objections, even when using a pragmatists own standard. France for example with its long history of revolutionary political violence accepted such violence as the inevitable price of change. Thus in post-war France, philosophers like Sartre were able to welcome Stalin’s slaughter and the show trails because they showed, perversely, the great cause was worth fighting for.</i><br /><br />Is this merely a mistake, or an inevitable consequence of pragmatic ethics?<br /><br /><i>If we were to pragmatically choose ethical systems based on pragmatism by observing outcomes, I don’t think pragmatism itself comes out ahead very often.</i><br /><br />An interesting point, that deserves a more complete exposition.<br /><br /><i> I think the epistemology problems are just as great with pragmatism as with other systems of ethics. Yes, there are fewer ontological entities but that is not necessarily good if the overall theory is flawed or weak and the conclusions lead to disaster.</i><br /><br />Another interesting point on which I'd like to hear a more detailed exposition.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-82920357656249828742012-12-09T19:25:07.678-07:002012-12-09T19:25:07.678-07:00I think a ‘radical honesty’ is called for. All sys...I think a ‘radical honesty’ is called for. All systems of ethics are flawed so we pick the systems that match our nature and serve us best. As an individualist, I opt for virtue ethics. Pragmatism is focused on epistemology which appeals to analytical minded people strongly influenced by the success of the scientific method. Deontological ethics is focused on ontological matters which appeal to those who need the appearance of certainty and the absolute, perhaps with a healthy helping of mysticism. <br /><br />But to address your actual post, ‘do the ends justify the means' is asked in the context of sacrifices, attacking the lack of protection given to the individual in some ethical arguments: How many people can we kill to make the world a better place for the rest? How much must I sacrifice to reach my goal? Deconstructing it in terms of means vs. ends doesn't really meet that attack because deontological systems usually try to have it both ways by claiming breaking moral laws which are observed in nature will always have negative and usually unforeseen consequences.<br /><br />I don’t think we need to rely on thought experiments like Omelas for objections to pragmatism. Modern history offers its own objections, even when using a pragmatists own standard. France for example with its long history of revolutionary political violence accepted such violence as the inevitable price of change. Thus in post-war France, philosophers like Sartre were able to welcome Stalin’s slaughter and the show trails because they showed, perversely, the great cause was worth fighting for. The communist revolution was the Party and to dissent against the Party was to weaken the revolution. Therefore sacrifices must be made for the great cause. <br /><br />You may answer ‘Yes but as a result of pragmatism I no longer support a party system and instead support delegate democracy.’ Fair enough. But cost of that knowledge was horrendous and consequentialist ethics were deployed to justify these actions in opposition to deontological ethics. If we were to pragmatically choose ethical systems based on pragmatism by observing outcomes, I don’t think pragmatism itself comes out ahead very often. <br /><br />Also, who decides what standard we analyse the outcomes against and by what standard is an outcome good or bad? Surely we’ll end up with committees of experts and competing standards and systems of measurement? I think the epistemology problems are just as great with pragmatism as with other systems of ethics. Yes, there are fewer ontological entities but that is not necessarily good if the overall theory is flawed or weak and the conclusions lead to disaster. <br />theObserverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487813166705644460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-56646382333775511332012-12-07T06:53:39.483-07:002012-12-07T06:53:39.483-07:00Bob,
I guess I don't see myself as ignoring th...Bob,<br />I guess I don't see myself as ignoring that unless you're looking for some sort of absolutist answer to the question. Since there isn't one (unless you have one to offer), then it's always going to be a question with continually shifting responses. <br /><br />We don't currently live in an environment where you can justify to society the theft of food or the murdering of your neighbor. Even if you can justify to yourself based on the simple premise that you need food to avoid death and shelter from the storm. <br /><br />Take abortion for example, today it's legal and most people think it should stay that way. However go back 40/50 years and the story is different. So what's happened? Did we realize we were wrong and we're now right? Or could it simply be that the thinking of 40 years ago doesn't work for people today as, I don't know, our needs and interests are different. <br /><br />It seems to me that given a context (our current one) there are easy consensus driven answers to these questions. The real trick seems to be how we skip the stone to the next piece of open water where justification for something new lies. If the idea takes, a pier is built to reach that new way of thinking. If it doesn't take, the dock withers away and falls back into the sea. Perhaps a question is, how do you justify something? Again, there's no absolutist answer, so it's really a question of context and justification - for me anyway. Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-90823205431058575452012-12-07T06:12:13.324-07:002012-12-07T06:12:13.324-07:00Bob: Keep in mind that there is a substantive diff...Bob: Keep in mind that there is a substantive difference between what I arbitrarily label as "pragmatism" and "expediency." Briefly, the former considers <i>all</i> the ends, as best we can determine; the latter considers only one or a few ends in isolation. A good justification of pragmatism can fail for expediency.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-60716945103113776132012-12-07T05:32:02.114-07:002012-12-07T05:32:02.114-07:00Andrew,
You seem to ignoring a multitude of possi...Andrew,<br /><br />You seem to ignoring a multitude of possible ends in deference to some ultimate end. Suppose there is no ultimate end. I will still need to eat. If I don't I will die. My immediate ends are to prevent my death and to sate my hunger. Do those ends justify the theft of my neighbours food? etc. etc.<br /><br /><i>I’ve never understood this question; do the ends justify the means? Because, of course the do.</i><br />My immediate end is to obtain a house to live in by myself. I obtain this end by murdering a family of four and moving into their house. <br /><br /><br />Can I be said to be <i>just</i> in my actions because the end that I was aiming for is worthy enough intrinsically? <br />or<br />Is the end sufficent to make the means of it's obtaining just? <br /><br />This sort of question seems emminently straghtforward and perfectly understandable.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-57109132877978847552012-12-05T19:00:43.093-07:002012-12-05T19:00:43.093-07:00I’ve never understood this question; do the ends j...I’ve never understood this question; do the ends justify the means? Because, of course the do. If they didn’t, then you’d know that whatever end you were at was really just the beginning. The reality is you never reach the end, that’s what the pragmatist approach is all about. The Realist may say that discovering all the Truth and encircling it with language is the goal of science and philosophy. But the Pragmatist says, I have no idea what it would be like to reach the goal, so far as we know exchanging justifications for the things we do, believe and say is true is what life will always be about. Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.com