[TeMPOraL]

It's perfect logic, just not for humans.

Seriously though, "the end justifies the means" is a perfectly valid argument, and there's no point thinking yourself in circles, trying to bend the rules of logic so that it stops supporting a conclusion you don't like.

Instead, it's better to investigate assumptions and applicability - and there you'll note that humans are far from perfect rational actors, that people plan badly, miscalculate and forget about past costs all the time, and that power corrupts over time - and with those assumptions, a flat-out ban on "the end justifies the means" is now absolutely reasonable. Not because it's not a rational view (it is), but because it doesn't work for humans, with our faulty, hostile wetware.

[RonanTheGrey]

> a flat-out ban on "the end justifies the means" is now absolutely reasonable

Especially because nobody ever completes the original phrase...

"The ends don't justify the means, because the means make the ends."

If you use war to prevent suffering, you get suffering. If you use hate to stop hate, you get hate. etc.

This is a long way of saying, we become the very thing we fight. Humans aren't capable of using "the ends justify the means" without that happening, due to our faulty, hostile wetware... as you note!

[seph-reed]

> it doesn't work for humans, with our faulty, hostile wetware.

Do you believe there is a future of humanity in which we don't figure out how to handle this? Does this seem like the kind of thing that can be figured out through group discussion, or is it better approached by strong leadership?

My personal philosophy is that we should operate like a game with players and refs. The refs technically have power, but aren't allowed to tell the players what to do. The players do not get to make the rules.

I think people should very clearly delineate between phases of their life where they are taking responsibility and focusing on society (refing), and phases of their life where they're just enjoying it (playing). No mixing the two. Either serious mode, or fun mode, but the moment you mix the two you get a conflict of interest: players should not ref. Fun people have a hard time being taken seriously, serious people aren't much fun.. it's just a bad thing to mix.

At the same time, refs need to know how to play. If a ref hasn't played for a long time, then their heart can't really be in the game. So refs are somewhat obligated to just let go sometimes, and later maybe they'll come back, remembering that the power is not what's important; the game is what really matters.

[rhizome]

>"the end justifies the means" is a perfectly valid argument

Sure, it just tends to be incredibly destructive, like you imply at the end of your comment. For me, this makes it bad.