I have no intention of getting involved in academia. That does not mean, however, that I am unqualified to take an interest in people’s views on the original question. It is a question has practical application in a cluster which frequently presents us with choices between unpleasant outcomes.
Perhaps it is because I have no education in Amarrian theology but, having trawled through the discussion above, I fail to see how the vast majority of it is actually applied to the original question by the parties involved. I can see how aspects of it could be and I can see that it may have merits of its own but neither of those two things make it relevant. On this basis, I stand by my original suggestion.
Being the original poster in this thread I will simply say that I am fine with the derailing. The question was not posed for practical reasons but rather for inciting philosophical / moral debate, and in that sense has been as far as I see on topic.
In which case, I will offer my thoughts. There seem to be variations on three views.
the means are all that matter;
the benefit to society is the most important consideration; and
you have to balance the two in their specific context.
Other interesting observations include:
A. it takes time to fully understand the consequences of choices (see 3 above);
B. justifications are irrelevant in the face of dire necessity;
C. “I don’t think I’m high enough” (probably a deliberate misunderstanding on my part but it made me smile).
I have not tried to distill the theological arguments because they are beyond me but I would be genuinely interested in understanding them.
Why? Because I spend a fair amount of time in pod being paid to shoot deserters from all four imperial navies. These are people who have no back up clones. If left unchecked, they almost invariably cause havoc in a community that I care about. Despite that, I often feel bad about it. On balance, I tend to towards option 3 as moderated by all of points A, B and C.
The Means used to achieve a particular End are Justified when there are No Other Options.
Example Scenario:
End: Continuation of the Reign of a Monarch.
Means A: Surveillance of all possible rivals, backed up by an extensive Secret Police Force.
Means B: Reigning Fairly and Justly.
The existence of method B, means that method A cannot be Justified.
Therefore, the End can only Justify the Means, when No Other Options exist.
Something I have noticed is that the people who justify their actions with the phase of ends justifying means very seldom actually achieve their originally stated ends. Rather, the means become the ends, and the cycle of violent breakdowns and retributions continue.
There will certainly be a cost for any goal worth striving towards, and I don’t want to suggest otherwise, but I don’t see people saying the ends justify the means when the relationship between the cost and achieving a goal are clear cut.
Where I see people talking about ends justifying means is in situations in which they want an excuse to use the more brutal options at their disposal. They spout out an unrealistic motto that they have no clear plan for ever achieving, and then they go and bomb a space station or assassinate a leader. When the dust clears, the high minded goal is still out of reach and people are dead for nothing. I have seen this cycle perpetrated both by those trying to bring the universe into rightness with God and by those trying to free the slaves.
In a universe as complicated as ours, where consequences of actions are almost never truly predictable, the intermediate objectives need to be viewed as ends in and of themselves. If those individual ends do not live up to your moral standards, then you should not pursue them, because the likelihood that you will somehow produce the moral end result you desire via means that have no place in the world you are striving for is next to nil.
Are you suggesting that Reclaiming every planet of every star in the heavens by means of conquest (Reclaiming 22:13) is an unrealistic goal?
No — the subhumans have been given ample time to bend the knee; their lives are now forfeit, and any means is justified in the end of Reclaiming it all.
Lots to unpack here.
No one is sub anything. The Amarr we’re choose to deliver the word of God. If anything Oblivion is more justified to souls who fails then those who never knew.
We know better, the responsibility of conversation is on us, not them. An ignorant but moral soul has a better passage then a lax enlightened one.
You will note that Reclaiming 22:13, perhaps our most sacred of Scriptures, says nothing about “conversion”. It does say something about “conquest”. Conquest is what we are required to do by God. If some of the subhumans wish to spare themselves a few thousand years of slavery and submit at once, the way the Khanid did so long ago, then so much the better. But conversion is in no way integral to the Reclaiming. Even the wicked and vile heretic Samira Kernher seems to understand that, even if wayward and liberal Amarrians like PIE, SFRIM, and…Aegis Militia(?) do not.
I don’t know where you’ve gotten this belief from but it is absolutely not true. While conversion is not always possible, the defeat of evil can’t always be accomplished without bloodshed or death and sin must be punished, every effort must be made into replacing flawed beliefs with true ones. I would remind you that among the passages in the Book of Reclaiming is this: Lead all children to the light of God, for Heaven is theirs to inherit. And it is obvious that those that have been raised in ignorance of Him are children in need of guidance.
Yes, the passages on the Reclaiming use the word conquest, but conquest is a word that has a lot of meanings. It means the defeat of something. The form and means of that defeat can be many. It can mean the physical conquest of territory and people, sure, but also the inner conquest of personal demons. Conversion is conquest. It is the conquering, defeating, of a flawed belief and replacing it with proper faith in God.
The Amarr Empire was founded to cultivate the spirit of man. And many, many times throughout Scripture, it is said that submission to God is the path to His mercy and love. To bring others into accordance with Him, to save them from themselves, is the noblest of goals.
You do not get to determine whether or not people have been given “ample time” or how forfeit their lives are. You are not God. You are not even a Holder.
Mr. Nauplius, can I just remind you that you’re still apparently under a certain curse? And that the curse’s main effect is apparently to inflate your certainty about your own perceptions?
“Pride” is sneaky. It’s even possible to pick it up by successfully demonstrating humility. Maybe I shouldn’t be saying this since it might be better for me if the curse never came undone, but … whatever anybody manages to work up to counter it, it’s not likely to be easily undone if you can’t resist it effectively.
So you should try.
Being a “monster for the Empire” is a grandiose self-image, steeped in “pride.” It’s something you in particular should maybe beware of. What you did for “pride” in the past is a lot of why you’re not treated well by most people, now.
This isn’t a safe road for you. It’s more likely to lead you back into that Hell in your head.
… and as you say yourself, even if you’re already doomed, it can always get worse.
When do the ends justify the means? Ideally always. If you act towards just goals, unjust means would defy a just goal. If the goal is worth pursuing, or just in your eyes then whatever means necessary would be just.
For instance, defending against the Amarr is just. Amarrian genocide is not. Killing those who aim to kill your own would be just, killing those who don’t harbor aggressive intent towards your own is not justifiable as that would not be defense but offense. It would not be the end your aiming for but another end entirely.
I am not sure that I agree with this interpretation, Ms. Jenneth. I see becoming a monster rather as an emptying out of one’s ego, performing selfless acts in defense of the Empire and expecting no acknowledgement or reward for my service. I cannot see anything grandiose about being a monster, madam.
God does not respect sin. He does not reward sin. A victory achieved by evil is no victory to Him. Claims that if we sin it is okay as long it is defending the faith, that we are nobly sacrificing, are only justifications we make to ourselves to shield ourselves from the truth; it is no excuse God will accept. There is no such thing as a monster in defense of the faith, Nauplius. Just a monster.
Which gets to the crux of this thread, on means and ends.
Ah, but I do not concede that I am in fact sinning; I am not blooding or torturing slaves, after all. I have resumed owning them, and I stuff them with Vitoc, and I was using them for scientific tests until the Triglavian Trinary Datastream Weaponization Citadel was removed, but these things are not sin. What I mean by being a monster is participating in those harsh, disagreeable practices that are nonetheless orthodox and useful and needed in defense of the Empire.
For example. slave traders and lava planet mine owners (who consume copious quantities of slaves in their business) are in a sense monsters and are often looked down upon by polite Amarr society. But they are perfectly orthodox and an integral part of the Empire.
You are a commoner and a heretic. You owning them is absolutely a ■■■■■■■ sin.
And while it’s not officially considered a sin by the orthodoxy, vitoxin poisoning absolutely should be.
No, they are not integral. And what is orthodox is not always right. High casualties in mining operations especially is one of the most ridiculous ■■■■■■■ excuses anyone in this cluster makes. No other empire has this problem. It is absolutely possible to ensure safety for your work force if you actually give enough of a damn about them to invest in the proper equipment, training, and safeguards. Anyone choosing not to do this is evil, and they are not doing God’s work.