Defence of principles vs ends justify the means.

In the end, the truth is, many conservatives are just whining because they can no longer push people around. Denigrate minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, women, etc openly. They are not getting away with taking away other people's constitutional rights any longer. So they lie, deflect, try to paint liberals as bad guys and them morally superior while they support neo-nazis and racists, say pretty racist things. I can't thing of any moral positions that the current republicans and many of their supporters stand for. What is moral about taking away some people's only chance at not starving, taking away healthcare, refusing to force companies to pay livable wages, while giving billionaires who already have nearly all the wealth tax breaks, and destroying regulations protecting people from the environment, trying to ban homosexuals from marrying, and force women into medical decisions against their will?

The more they lie and say stupid things about "leftists this, liberals that," with no actual argument or backing up their position (they just love to throw out opinions with no reasoning like they are facts) the more they validate that liberals are correct.

We were right about the Iraq war, we were dead right about Trump, and they just can't stand it

 

I dislike the term hate speech. Hate speech is only hate speech when you're on the wrong end of it.

Incitement to violence is a problem, but only when it's in opposition to individual liberty. After all, we don't classify calls to eradicate ISIS hate speech, or incitement to violence.

This is another weakness of the cultural relativists. They find themselves screaming hate speech in defense of cultures that violate many of their own principles of ethics. The only culture they find fault with is their own culture, despite the existence of those same faults within other cultures.

 

i have never understood why "the ends justify the means" is problematic. if the means lead to bad things, that just means you have defined your ends poorly. define your end in such a way that the means will literally always justify them. otherwise you are just doing it wrong. same with principles: if following your principles ever lead you to take a non-optimal choice... that just means your principles are bad.

but fpr this milo thing... his arguments are seperate from his person. he can be a pedophile or whatever... doesnt matter for his arguments. of course people will irrationally discredit his arguments anyways. people worl like that unfortunately.

 

What the HECK does "win against Islam" even mean?

There is NO chance we are going to convert 1.6 billion people to some other religion.

Let's remember that the entire Middle East is only 17% of Islam, and there is NO chance of converting even that fraction.

Much more importantly, there are militant radicals that we know we can not defeat without the help of Islam - an objective we share with them.

 

Because it's a fallible course of logic. There are many means to an end. Not all are justifiable even if they all reach the exact same end.

While you are correct, some ends are not justifiable, there are indeed justifiable ends with unjustifiable means.

For example, take the premise: It is the highest importance to be a good steward of the planet, and protect it from the negative effects of mankind's existence.

Because of this premise these people exist

http://www.vhemt.org/

Does a pristine planet justify wiping out all of mankind? Of course not.

Or you could take my rape example. The ends = zero rape. The means: Kill all men.

 

Please follow along with the course of discussion. You've taken this out of context, and that is the source of your confusion.

I make a statement to Lil Mike that if an argument in support of truth cannot win, then it is not true. His response was that Islam must be true because "it's the fastest growing religion" Clearly, by "win" I mean the existence of a truth argument that can successfully refute truth arguments made by Islam.

If your claim is true, how could the reformation, or the enlightenment possibly have taken place? Isn't that the prime example of a truth argument "winning" against an invalid truth claim held by quite a few people?

 

I look at it just slightly differently.

Even well defined, "good" objectives (or "ends") can be met by means that have some sort of negative component - they break the law, or moral code, or whatever.

Does the "end" of keeping my child alive in a time of serious want justify stealing food?

I think the aphorism was meant to imply that valid ends justify ALL means - that they allow stepping over our lines of law, morals, ethics, etc.

So, some would say that the aphorism is false - that is, you have to follow the law/morals/etc. regardless of how important the ends may be.


My own opinion is that ends could possibly justify stepping over certain lines, but it would require case by case justification. And, it may include paying a price - such as, someone might be able to justify stealing food even if they faced a penalty for having done so.

 

Exactly. Is it justifiable to steal someone's kidney in order to save the life of someone with diseased kidneys, etc...

 

Calls to eradicate ISIS can definitely qualify as hate speech. ISIS is an enemy, however incitements against that enemy can definitely be over the top, and can very easily be poorly aimed, can lead to bad policy and irrational fear and can be lacking in truth and rationality. It can incite violence against Muslims in general or various groups. It can create a hostile environment for many here in the US.

I'm pretty sure we could look at specific speech and come to agreement on whether it is hate speech or not. I don't agree that hate speech is benign if only you just look at it in the right way. I'll bet youagree for cases such as the KKK.

And, we have to be careful when judging other cultures. I have no idea what you are referring to in your last couple sentences. We would be better off if we learned more about other cultures.

 

Can possibly. Is it a sure thing? Not by a long shot. You seem to think that just being right is enough. I think the ideas you seem to think are right are on a losing track and have been for a while. History doesn't seem to care about our ideologies.

 

Being right has historically benefited from also being a bad ass mofo. But I'd like to think that for the majority of people, who I believe are reasonable...only reason is required.

 

Only reason is required? OK. Have a nice night.

 

Right. It's a matter of personal opinion. Its subjective, and the law should not be subjective. It should be objective. I have no problem with the term hate speech if that's how you choose to describe speech you disagree with. I have a problem when you use the force of government (violence) to punish those you deem as hate speakers.

 

You don't think that the majority of people are reasonable? Then how can you support a government designed to be controlled by a majority of the people? Wouldn't you instead rather be ruled by a minority of so called reasonable people?

 

Basically, hate speech is speech that attacks, threatens, promotes violence against, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

Surely universities have a duty to promote a climate of open discussion, learning, and safety that would justify limits on hate speech and those who can't manage to avoid it. They also have limits on all sorts of other aspects related to their education, up to and including what can get a student expelled.

Students consent to those standards when they enroll.

I'm glad that this discussion board has limits on speech! And, we consented to these limits in order to post here.

 

If I've derived one lesson from the past two years (and more pointedly the past two months), it's that reason plays very little part in persuasion. I would have been more informed if for the past two years I had read only Scott Adams blog and never watched the news or read a newspaper. I think this site is a good example. How often has someone's mind been changed based on the other person making the most reasonable points?

 

something can only be unjustified if it is somehow "bad". So why not just define it as part of your end to avoid bad things? that's my point. If you think protecting the planet is most important, but that leads you to the conclusion you must murder all people, but you also think that murdering all people is bad, then maybe you should define your ends to be something like "reach the most tolerable compromise between protecting the planet AND humans". Now, if that's you end, it no longer makes any sense to kill all humans. But IF you actually ONLY cared about the planet, and not about humans at all, then it would be justified to wipe out humanity (according to you of course, everyone has their own views of right and wrong).

i might be overthinking this though.

as I see it there is not simply one end, but an array of ends, which are ordered by importance. lower priority things can be delayed/sacrificed to achieve higher priority things. People order their arrays differently though. But, since higher priority things are per definition more important, it is of course justified to ignore the lower ones to achieve them. If this doesn't feel right, then maybe your array is not properly sorted.

also, an end wouldn't justify any means. if there is a conflict between ends, you start with the lowest prioritsed end, and see if you can trade it for the higher end. if not, move on to the second lowest and try the same thing, and so on. So, if your child is starving and you have the alternatives of simply stealing food, OR, murdering someone for food, you would probably try to just steal it rather than murder (provided that you value murder to be worse than stealing).

 

Ease up Machiavelli. You can force people to do what you want through threat, but that doesn't mean you've persuaded them to change their mind.

Look, this is one of the big differences between left and right. If we abandon it, then we're abandoning a cornerstone of our principle. The left believes that the world is corrupt, that their values are the correct ones, and they must use violence to force those that are corrupt to comply with their values. You see this thinking in all of their policy from health care, to the economy, to even the very basic right of property ownership.

The minimum wage is a prime example of an attempt to use the threat of violence to force others to value the way they value. It doesn't work, of course, precisely due to the fact that you can't force an individual to value something they don't value. A true change of value can only be accomplished through a reasonable argument that is accepted by that individual.

So you ask how often someone's mind has been changed through reasonable argument? I say, every time a mind has been changed it's been due to reasonable argument. Otherwise, that person still holds the original view, and as soon as they think they have advantage they're going to do what they can to force you to do what they want the same way you forced them.

 

For one, you're not always the tyrant that gets to define the ends. For two, without a code of ethics that applies to the entire process, it's impossible to define an ethical end result.

Consider these two statements:

I've lived an ethical life, therefor I've reached my goal.

I've reached my goal, therefor I've lived an ethical life.

Do you see no difference?

 

The left uses force to impose their will because they really have a Marxian view of history; all the stages are just a prelude to that big socialist utopia that's just around the corner. If you are fighting for utopia against regressives who want to stop that, of course they think violence is not only sanctioned, but good.

But look at the past Presidential election. Do you think that the reason Trump won not only the nomination but the Presidency was because he made an irrefutable reasoned argument? Or you could argue the other end, Hillary won the popular vote. Was her popular vote win based on reasoned argumentation?

 

I didn't vote for Trump, so I can't say that his reasoning persuaded me in any shape or form. I also don't pretend to assume for others what reasoning they accepted and what they rejected.

I will say that Trump represented himself as a state's rights advocate, an advocate for reasonable immigration policy, an advocate for reasonable defense policies, an advocate for reasonable spending, reasonable health care policy...etc. I certainly can't believe that those who voted for him did so in majority for unreasonable reasons. That's the argument of the left, who wish to smear them all as racists, sexists, bigots, etc.. in order to invalidate the actual arguments that persuaded the voters to vote as they did.

And just to be clear: reasonable is not the same as moderate. Reasonable means a conclusion formed through at least an attempt at a cohesive epistemological argument. It doesn't always mean a valid argument, but does require it at least be a thoughtful argument, not an appeal to emotion, or authority, or precedent.

 

Does your "principle" include defending pedophiles?

 

Then there you go. It doesn't matter how cohesive an "epistemological argument" is. You could make reasonable arguments for both sides, but it depends on your worldview if they give you the results you want.

 

Find a different conservative to articulate the same views. There should be plenty of them. Does Milo alone have to do this?

 

never said I was, but it's implied in your question that we're speaking about my ends (and other people's subjective ends). Whose else? Is there some objective end, some end that everyone agrees to? No. Everyone has their own ends... that's an assumption I make. It's pointless to discuss this if we don't make that assumption, isn't it?

That's my point. If you have a problem with the means to achieve an end, because it leads to something bad, as defined by your code of ethics, then why didn't you just define your ends so that they don't conflict with your ethics code?

yes, your two statements are true... IF you have defined that your goal is to live ethically.

my point is... If you ever reach your goal, but haven't been ethical, that just means being ethical isn't part of your goal. For people whose goals include ethical behaviour, it is never justified to use unethical means to achieve some end, because behaving ethically is in itself and end.