Holy crud, 2 posts in ONE DAY?
The end DOES justify the means. It's a foundational concept of LIFE, particularly social organization.
For example, for most people, work sucks. But they do it, why?
Imprisoning people is fundamentally a mean thing to do, but if someone murders someone else, we put the murderer in jail. Why?
We CONSTANTLY do unpleasant or unhappy things, because they will ultimately result in better things (or at least good things).
Now, we can argue about the relative merits of ends vs means, but I'm really fecking tired of people claiming that "justifying the method by the result" is somehow inherently morally flawed.
And yes, I understand that I'm invoking Godwin's Law here but also yes, I get it: Himmler no doubt felt he was doing the RIGHT thing as much as we feel we're doing the RIGHT thing fighting terrorism. Does that make us morally equal? Ultimately, I find the intellectually-simple shortcut of thereby equating us is intellectually laze and frankly reprehensible. At some point an adult has to grow up and decide that some things are good and some things are bad, and stop excusing the bad because it might be unpleasant or uncomfortable to fight it.
Personally, I suspect that avoiding moral certainty is based in cowardice: Ultimately, since according to the relativists there is no actual God, there is no ACTUAL moral yardstick; what is "good" is determined by the simple will of the majority around us. Those afraid to take a stand are afraid they might be wrong, and that the majority will turn on them, so they advocate tolerance of everything to ultimately protect their own ass.
So yes, taking a moral position is *risky*. It takes some courage to say "THIS is what I believe, and f' you all if you disagree". But that's being a grownup.
The end DOES justify the means. It's a foundational concept of LIFE, particularly social organization.
For example, for most people, work sucks. But they do it, why?
Imprisoning people is fundamentally a mean thing to do, but if someone murders someone else, we put the murderer in jail. Why?
We CONSTANTLY do unpleasant or unhappy things, because they will ultimately result in better things (or at least good things).
Now, we can argue about the relative merits of ends vs means, but I'm really fecking tired of people claiming that "justifying the method by the result" is somehow inherently morally flawed.
And yes, I understand that I'm invoking Godwin's Law here but also yes, I get it: Himmler no doubt felt he was doing the RIGHT thing as much as we feel we're doing the RIGHT thing fighting terrorism. Does that make us morally equal? Ultimately, I find the intellectually-simple shortcut of thereby equating us is intellectually laze and frankly reprehensible. At some point an adult has to grow up and decide that some things are good and some things are bad, and stop excusing the bad because it might be unpleasant or uncomfortable to fight it.
Personally, I suspect that avoiding moral certainty is based in cowardice: Ultimately, since according to the relativists there is no actual God, there is no ACTUAL moral yardstick; what is "good" is determined by the simple will of the majority around us. Those afraid to take a stand are afraid they might be wrong, and that the majority will turn on them, so they advocate tolerance of everything to ultimately protect their own ass.
So yes, taking a moral position is *risky*. It takes some courage to say "THIS is what I believe, and f' you all if you disagree". But that's being a grownup.
No comments:
Post a Comment