Friday, July 01, 2011
End justifies means
Looks like the NY police are doubting the credibility of the maid who was fondled by le Chimpanzé en Rut. Okay, fine. Doesn't matter at this point. A major international gangster has been removed from power, so the details are pretty much irrelevant now.
End justifies means? Yes. Some ends justify all means. Dubious accusation, true accusation, bullets, H-bombs.
If you think "end justifies means" is automatically bad, you have no moral code.
Polistra has discussed this before in a different context:
End justifies means? Yes. Some ends justify all means. Dubious accusation, true accusation, bullets, H-bombs.
If you think "end justifies means" is automatically bad, you have no moral code.
Polistra has discussed this before in a different context:
As said before, the experiments of history have already been performed. We have the data. We know how to convince a fierce and determined enemy to stop. Oddly enough, the proper method is democratic in a way, though it has nothing at all to do with elections. Fact is, any successful tyrant rules with the enthusiastic consent of a majority of his people. When that consent disappears, his regime collapses, though not always immediately. We accomplished this collapse in 1945, after three years of killing soldiers and generals had failed to remove the people's consent. What finally did the trick? Killing huge numbers of civilians, with no regard for the traditions and laws of fighting. Churchill and Roosevelt violated all the rules of civilization for several months, used totally evil methods and means for a short time, because they were certain of their own good ends. They knew that Britain and its allies were the permanent carriers of humane civilization, they had tried all lesser methods without success, and they also knew that decency and goodness would leave this earth for a very long time if the Krauts and Nips continued their enthusiastic consent for imperial fascism.¶ 4:45 AM
