One big difference between the Repugs & Dems.

[skooooo]

Based on my observations, I think the Republicans are much more likely to believe that the ends justify the means than Democrats.

Look at their typical sentiments concerning the Iraq war -- no concern over innocent people being killed, because (supposedly) we are also killing terrorists or (my favorite) potential terrorists. So as long as they can conjure up SOME kind of positive outcome in their actions, they feel totally justified.

I was taught that the ends DO NOT justify the means. Go figure.

[NJmaverick]

1. Terrorist also believe the ends justify the means

Go figure

[gollygee]

2. I agree completely (m)

I was just thinking about this the other night. Repubs don't mind lying to get Bush elected (swift liars for instance) or stealing an election because the end result is what is important - the way they got there isn't important.

And yes, the same is true for the Iraq war. It doesn't matter if they lied about why we were going - in their opinion it's ok because they figure it needed to be done. Who cares if they lied about the reason? It is a frustrating attitude.

[skooooo]

3. Right! So.....

...maybe that's the real point that needs to be driven home. That the end DOESN'T justify the means.

[rock]

4. I smell Poll Time!

You wanna do it? I think you're on to something.

[skooooo]

5. Do what?

Not sure what you mean.

[rock]

6. A poll

Do DUers believe the end justifies the means? (Always, Sometimes, Never).

[TahitiNut]

7. This is a long-accepted difference between conservatives and liberals

Conservatives are far more utilitarian and liberals are far more deontological in their ethical systems.

A utilitarian ethic is apt to agree that the ends justify the means and view people as means rather than as ends. "Might makes right" is a prototypical attitude of the utilitarian ethic.

A deontological ethic views people as ends rather than means and rejects the justification of the means by the ends, believing that such means then become the ends. "Power corrupts" is a prototypical attitude of the deontological ethic.


One must take care, however, since strong partisanship is also a utilitarian viewpoint, tending to apologize nearly any tactic in favor of gaining power. (This is much of why I'm an anti-partisan liberal independent.)

[skooooo]

8. ..interesting..

Thanks for reframing the discussion. I wasn't familiar with the term "deontological".

Somehow I think to engage conservatives in this discussion, we have to break it down or else they'll accuse us of being fancy pants intellectual elitist.

[TahitiNut]

10. Here's just one link ...

http://www.wcdebate.com/4bconnection/ld-article-05-03.htm


Remember, to deeply believe that "the ends justify the means" one must be able to foresee the consequences (ends) of all actions. This is why utilitarianism is but one term describing consequentialism.

Kant (generally seen as a father of deontology) instead focused on motive and maxim - the inherent character of any act itself.

[barackmyworld]

9. this contradicts with some economic policies

For instance, steep taxes to fund welfare should have deontological opposition (taking things from people is bad) and a utilitarian justification (in the end, more people are better off) but instead we see the opposite. Why?

[TahitiNut]

11. Because the accepted goal of public systems is Justice.

An economic system totally relies on a complex tapestry of regulations, enforcement, and entitlements - all functions of government. The foremost rationale for government must be justice. Equity.

It is, consistent with such precepts, just and equitable for those who benefit the most from that system to pay the most for that system.

Equity is not strict equality. No sane theory of government attempts to achieve strict equality. Equity, however, is fairness - and an abhorrence of privilege. Conservatives tend to jealously guard privilege ... whether it be the privileges of birth or the privileges of ownership. Constantly raising the spectre of "special rights" they're the foremost beneficiaries of "special rights" - rights which they attempt to deny "lesser" others.