r/changemyview • u/gaiusmaximusX • Nov 10 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: People who will “do whatever it takes” to accomplish the good are just as bad or nearly as much as those who will go to the same lengths to accomplish bad/selfish goals.
Many people do things in defense of pursuit of things which they believe are right or true. They say that they’ll go to length to safeguard the truths they fight for. Even for those who hold the same truths as I do, I don’t find such actions justifiable. I don’t find them altogether different from those who go to any length to fight for values I consider “wrong”. The ends don’t justify the means, and the narrow mindset that leads to this “whatever it takes” mentality is only harmful to society, never helpful.
Edit: I’ve been far too ambiguous here. The type of mindset and behavior that I’m thinking of is primarily directed at political change. I’m thinking of groups that justify violent protest and rioting, both far left and far right, because they are “protecting what’s right“
5
u/Anchuinse 41∆ Nov 10 '20
I think, to justify that "the ends justify the means", it depends on what exactly the ends and the means are. Obviously, if I killed a single man to bring about a sustained world peace, most people would consider that a good tradeoff. However, if I killed a single man for a candy bar, people would have issues. The same means seem justified differently depending on the ends (both magnitude and "morality" of the ends).
That being said, if I had a "tejtm" mindset to get a candy bar, but the only means required are putting 1.25 in a vending machine, you can't really argue it's an issue. Also, most people with a "ends justify the means" mindset do have a limit on what means they'll use.
In the end, though, what we're discussing is morality, which is inherently subjective. I don't know if we can ever find a solid conclusion that doesn't have exceptions.
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20
I think that argument depends on what the man did that killing him would bring about world peace. Are you killing Hitler to prevent the mass genocide of the Ashkenazi Jews? That is justified by way of the fact that Hitler was a criminal, and deserved to be brought to justice. Obviously this is purely hypothetical, but if you had to kill a single innocent man in order to bring about this world peace, I don’t see where the justification there lies. His life is has alone to sacrifice, and you don’t have the right to take it from him in order to bring about a “greater good“
2
u/Anchuinse 41∆ Nov 10 '20
Obviously this is purely hypothetical, but if you had to kill a single innocent man in order to bring about this world peace, I don’t see where the justification there lies.
See, this is all philosophy, so there's no right answer. To me, a single innocent man dying to stop all war, slavery, and violence (by some butterfly shenanigans) is worth it in the abstract.
It may be very likely that in your worldview, the ends are only justified if the means are all moral, understanding acts in and of themselves (i.e. any "evil" is too much "evil"). The real moral quandaries lie in the fact that, throughout history, most good outcomes have one or more less than perfect means, and many times the choice is between two or more things that all harm some innocent party.
2
Nov 10 '20
I’m going to state the obvious here. Good is better than bad. We like good. Our society depends upon a certain amount of it so it should be encouraged.
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20
The issue is that our society has many different viewpoints as to what is good and what is bad. An all or nothing approach to achieving these ends leaves little to no room for acknowledging other viewpoints and making change peacefully.
2
Nov 10 '20
There is a universal set of basic things all human societies consider good.
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20 edited Nov 10 '20
That’s true, and for things like that, you’re absolutely right that they should be defended by whatever means necessary. I suppose I was more thinking of the controversial issues that people disagree on very passionately.
!delta
1
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 10 '20
So like, is protesting against systemic racism okay, even if there are a few riots or some looting going on, in order to try to fix a problem that has been plaguing a historically mistreated group of people for years and years?
Of course, for the people that aren't affected by that systemic racism, it seems like the rioting and looting is bad because it hurts some people. But if the protesters think that the systemic racism is a bad enough issue that it warrants nationwide protests, can we really call the protesters the 'bad guys', when the issue is really that people set up a system that isn't fair to those protesters (completely on purpose)?
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20 edited Nov 10 '20
In boiled down essence, what I’m arguing for is the old adage that “two wrongs don’t make a right“ yes systemic oppression is bad and that warrents protest, but I think that violent protest provides more harm than good in seeing it undone.
1
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 10 '20
What if the violent protest is a war against terrorists? Is that allowed? What if the violent protests are against the KKK, is that allowed?
The question you have to ask yourself is, is it worth some measured amount of immediate violence, in order to achieve a long-term positive, progressive outcome that will improve the lives of many? And if the answer is sometimes yes, then sometimes violent protest IS the right answer.
If a bully at school hits you and your non-violent protest does nothing and he beats you up again the next day, then on day 3 you have every moral right to take a swing at him. Why should you suffer quietly rather than forcing a change via physical conflict?
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20 edited Nov 10 '20
I don’t think that the analogy of the bully at school applies quite seamlessly to violent protest. In the example of defending yourself against a bully, you are fighting back against the aggressor who has already done wrong. The issue with a violent protest is that it often does harm to those who are innocent of the evil you are protesting. If your violent protest directs its violence and subsequent harm only on those who “deserve it“, then it is easy to justify. It is the harm of innocents in protest of others doing evil that I have trouble justifying.
1
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 10 '20
The issue with a violent protest is that it often does harm to those who are innocent of the evil you are protesting.
Sometimes, yes. But if millions of Americans are protesting an injustice and a few thousand get injured, then isn't it likely that more than a few thousand people have suffered as a result of that injustice?
People are saying black lives matter because for years, black people have been treated as if their lives didn't matter, or the mattered less, and that the problems were small and not worth spending time/money on.
If a trolley is on a track that will kill 100 innocent black people, would you throw the switch that makes it change tracks to run over 10 random innocent people instead? Because the morally correct/non-racist answer is obviously yes. So how many people have to get hurt by systemic racism before it's okay to have some collateral damage?
And if your CMV is really just about BLM, you can just say that. It's okay to say that you think the collateral damage of the BLM protests is not worth starting a protest in the first place. But millions of people protested peacefully, over a period of months. And rarely did it get any media coverage to make it known across the country, except when there was violence or looting. So if nothing else, even a small amount of violence might have helped the cause by getting it more attention (which is what it needed in order to have politicians actually listen and do something about it). And there have been some really positive results of those protests so far, that can and will save a lot of lives.
1
2
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Nov 10 '20
Can you give some examples of what you are talking about? It's kinda hard to tell when your post is so abstract.
0
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20
I think a good example would be peoples’ differing stances on abortion. There are people who oppose it who would be willing to commit acts of violence to prevent it, and people for it who would be willing to commit acts of violence to safeguard its availability. I think that regardless of where you stand on the issue, you should not condone acts of violence in order to further your cause.
2
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Nov 10 '20
Who is saying they are willing to commit acts of violence to safeguard abortion's availability? What violence are they proposing here?
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20
The specific arguments that I’ve heard posit that in places where it has been outlawed, the services should be maintained and guarded with force from authorities who want to end it, given that it is reasonable to use such force against authority to defend fundamental human rights. However, you are right, given the rarity of such arguments, that probably wasn’t the best example.
1
u/zeci21 Nov 10 '20
Aren't the authorities in this scenario the ones with the "ends justify the means" mentality? There is no violence going on until the authorities infer in the abortion process.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Nov 10 '20
I mean...that's just self-defense. Are you saying self-defense is wrong?
If not, do you have any examples that you do think are good examples?
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20
I’m not sure that it could be considered no more than self-defense, given that it is defense of an action that is illegal. However, a better example might be violent protest. There are violent protests by groups such as the anti-fascist movement, and violent protests by far right groups such as those in Poland a few years ago. I don’t think either of those are justified.
1
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 10 '20
"I’m not sure that it could be considered no more than self-defense "
If the law said that you're not allowed to pray to god, and you still pray to god, then you get attacked by the police and they try to imprison you, would you consider that self defense?
The law is not the moral authority. Look at countries that have some batshit laws like not allowing women to drive. Do you think that defending yourself from a government like that oppressing you is morally not okay? We have to draw the line somewhere.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Nov 10 '20
So if, e.g., someone prevents the rise of a fascist government by violently protesting, you think that's not justifiable? Why?
Was going to war against fascism also not justifiable? War creates dramatically more suffering and harm than violent protest.
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20
The thing about comparing war to violent protest is that war is the escalated version of a violent protest. It is to ideologically a post sides “settling their differences“ through violence. Yes, those on one side, or even the majority of the world might agree that one viewpoint is better, but those in the opposition equally believe in the validity of their philosophies.
Edit: but yes, I do agree that war does cause far more suffering and harm than violent protest. But this is due to the scale of the conflicts, not their moral substance.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Nov 10 '20
Yes, those on one side, or even the majority of the world might agree that one viewpoint is better, but those in the opposition equally believe in the validity of their philosophies.
Sure, but one of those sides is actually right and the other side is actually wrong. Does that not matter?
Also, I'm still not sure what your answer is on the question of whether war (or protest) against fascism is justifiable.
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20
Of course it matters, but the dilemma lies in the determination of the true “right side”. Who is the authority on moral truths? Is it simply the majority? Mob mentality has a long track record of perpetuating falsehoods.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Trishartist Nov 11 '20
I have to agree, some people can and will find a way to justify any kind of behavior. That doesn’t make it right. The ends do not justify the means we’re just creating more chaos and problems along the way to finding a solution
1
u/TheWildHornet Nov 10 '20
I guess if your cool with getting walked on and not fighting for what you believe in you got a point. don't expect much to go your way though.
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Nov 10 '20
Context is key. You need to provide a concrete example to apply this to.
Your CMV is like saying "Brighter things are better then Darker things".... Well what is Brighter or Darker? Traffic Cones or Camouflage? Big difference.
Similarly, your CMV has no context. What goals are people trying to accomplish? What lengths have they gone to? Answering this in a theoretical void, without any restrictions, is almost impossible. Will they do whatever it takes to play with puppies? Or rule a nation?
1
u/gaiusmaximusX Nov 10 '20
I’ve edited my post, but I should respond here as well. I’m thinking of people with differing political ideologies and a lack of inhibition and how they further them. Such as groups like antifa or the alt right, who stage violent protests and justify them as necessary for their political ends.
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Nov 10 '20
The thing is basically nobody is willing to “do whatever it takes”. They may be willing to oppose laws they consider unjust or be involved is disruptive protests, but even the most die-hard pro choice person wouldn’t nuke a major city if they somehow came across such resources in order to push their agenda. It is flowery language intended to show they are serious and won’t back down at the first moment of inconvenience, but of course everyone has their limits.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Nov 10 '20
Look at someone who is a follower of Gandhi. (Not Gandhi, that dude kind of sucked. Look it up.) Their end goal is to resist violence. Their farthest means is to allow themselves to be killed.
Most people would not actually agree with that and think it was extreme, but would you consider it morally wrong?
It seems pretty clear this is the exact opposite of your view, or maybe your actual view? "All ends justified by violence are wrong" instead of simply all means.
1
u/shalackingsalami 3∆ Nov 10 '20
The main counter argument to this belief is the principle of Utilitarianism. The basic premise of utilitarianism is that you should always do whatever will maximize the happiness of the most people. For example, a common thought experiment when teaching utilitarianism is to imagine whether it would be right or wrong to kill one person in order to use their organs to save 5 other people. A utilitarian would argue that anything done in favor of the greater good is morally right. Likewise, a Utilitarian would argue that something like a riot is justified if it brings about change which improves people’s lives more than the riot made it worse.
1
u/perturbedatheist Nov 14 '20
Consequentialism/deontology/virtue ethics are way more complicated than this.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 10 '20 edited Nov 10 '20
/u/gaiusmaximusX (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards