 |
|
|
|
| The Ends Usually Justify The Means |
| If I had to give up privacy for security, I'd join in whole-heartedly. If I had to kill 30 innocents to save 40 from an attack, I wouldn't think twice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't from a moral standpoint. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, because what some people might look at and think "good ends" may be to others harmful. For
example, to Hitler, purifying the German race meant killing millions and millions of people, but for
him, that was worth it and justified. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Look closer at the long history of human-caused suffering in the form of injustice, violence, war,
etc and you will find the instigator(s) in most every case followed an ends justify the means
rationale.
You say you'd give up your privacy for security, so does that mean you'll except a camera in your
bathroom due to the 0000001% chance a terrorist will be in there? You say killing 30 innocents is
OK to save 40. Does that mean if anyone gets sick on your luxury cruise they should be thrown
overboard to minimize the chance they'll accidentally infect someone else?
Look, government exists to impose order and if you accept ends justify means then you empower that
government to do absolutely anything and everything to you they want because they can always justify
it for the sake of order. You might as well be a slave. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as you have placed them in your description. One
cannot simply give up their privacy for security, because no one is ever completely secure or
private no matter what you do. The U.S. Government could take your privacy away from you and say
that they will give you security in return, but what happens when that security fails? Do you get
your privacy back plus interest? Is an apology good enough for you after you've sacrificed and
compromised your privacy?
And then killing 30 to save 40; where does it end? People who say they'd kill 30 people to save 40
without thinking twice literally scare the sh*t out of me because taking a life isn't something that
should be weighed out like a simple math equation. Okay sure, 40 people minus 30 people means that
you'll be saving 10 people, but what gives you the right to say that those 10 extra people are worth
killing the other 30? How can you base the worth of a life simply by the numbers?
No one should ever be given the choice of having to kill one group of people to save another, and no
one should be able to make this decision so easily simply based on the numbers. Anyone who chooses
to kill the 30 to save the 40 and doesn't have nightmares afterward scares me. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Make sure you are on the enemy camp then, because I am a Patriot and an American who has the
Constitutionally-protected right to have and to bear arms.
There are no collective rights without individual ones.
I am for the Individual. Always.
Long live the NRA.
And besides that, each individual is most precious to themselves as one's own life IS One's Own
Sacred VALUE.
Down with the State!
Up with The Individual.
Individuals were the ones who founded these great United States of America on these premises that
God created all men equal with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Life, Liberty, and the Right Of Property.
The individual's life, liberty, and property - NOT THE STATE'S. The individual always. Always. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 Feb 2009 03:50
Sign In
