Swear words are sinful.
They’re fun, though.
3 Likes
Shut the ■■■■ up.
3 Likes
Says who?
1 Like
You could take it that way, Arrendis, but you would be wrong to do so. But you could certainly read it as disapproval of those who claim to oppose the Amarr practice as a whole but view it as a necessary evil.
1 Like
Well, you say that 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 […] is next to nil’.
So let’s start at the beginning: do you feel that attacking a peaceful nation that had offered no threat, and raining death and destruction upon civilian populations is moral?
2 Likes
Oh, this should be good.
2 Likes
Nah, the Gallente attack on Caldari Prime was pretty immoral.
1 Like
There is a reason I advocate for a State/Republic alignment to stand against both of the Expansionist Powers, yes.
6 Likes
While I do not go so far as to advocate a stance necessarily both expansionist powers (read, Galente. My feelings towards Amarr should be well known) I very much agree with Arrendis that a State/Republic alignment would be best for the cluster as a balance between the two other Empires.
1 Like
Well if it’s going to benefit us against the Amarr, it has to benefit them against the Gallente, no?
1 Like
Well, yes. its really just a question of semantics/nuance I suppose. What I mean to say is that I would not advocate for any outright hostility towards the Federation.
It occurs to me that if such an alignment were to take place, that the above would likely be the case for the Caldari just in reverse. As such we could probably count on moderation from both sides. That seems like it would be the best state of affairs, really.
1 Like
Oh, there’d be hostility. And while I don’t think either side would expect support in aggressive actions… those actions, historically, have been ‘aggressive’ only in the context of retaking what was stolen. Caldari Prime, the Matari still in chains, etc.
Neither nation has seemed, so far, to be interested in doing more than taking back what should not have been stolen from them in the first place.
4 Likes
I do not disagree with you in this.
2 Likes
I would define the question of when do ends justify the means as a matter of strategy and tactics, or rather, when does a strategy justify the tactics used to implement it. Strategy, a desired political outcome for a nation or State, defines the ends and tactics, the actual physical implementation of strategy, are the means.
The validity of a tactic, to me, lies in its contribution to the success of a strategy and the desired political outcomes of a nation and its leadership. However, I do believe there has always existed a belief held by some that only the harshest or most punitive of means contribute the greatest to the success of a nation. I would consider such thinking a dangerous one.
For when the harshest method a nation can deploy against another is the force and violence of war, to hold that only harshness is required to achieve the goal of strategic success means warfare will be advocated even when it is inimicable to the interests of a nation. The expenditure in lives and treasure that warfare requires is a consideration that should not be entered into either lightly or irresponsibly, yet unfortunately it all too often is. Not for any reason of real or actual benefit to the State but rather for more personal reasons held by those who wield power.
War is just a means to an end, but when it becomes an end unto itself then I would say neither its ends or means are justified.
1 Like
There are always multiple roads leading to the destination. Ones you see, ones you cannot see, ones you think are easy, ones you think are hard, ones you think impossible, ones you might think are crazy and others you don’t even think about.
If you by some reason need to justify means by ends alone it just means you’re not wise enough to see all the ways and all the options.
Well, not even ALL the options, but at least a SINGLE other one. Because when you have two different means leading to the same ends, you already have to justify why you prefer one to another.
1 Like
I can always empathize with a people who fight for their own independence and right to existence against the subjugation of a foreign power.
2 Likes
I think I’m way too dense for a question like this, I still can’t figure out how to answer it.
3 Likes
But that means you are considering how to answer it before you answer, my friend, and that is a quality not universal to the cluster. I think you may be quite less dense than you assume.
7 Likes
The Ends justify the Means when the Means are an End in themselves.
Sounds complicated? I’ll try to explain:
One could fight to win, for example. But winning is just an End: it is a specific goal or outcome which you can often readily determine if you have reached it or not.
Fighting for justice (or liberty perhaps in your case) is different than fighting to win. The fight for justice is never completed, there is always a need to continue to do so, it lacks a concrete goal. Because justice is a process. Justice is a Means and not an End.
Fighting for justice also puts a burden on you to fight in a just way, but it does not neccesarily mean all your actions need to be just. However, if your actions aren’t anything but just, you might become part of the problem at some point in time. Depending on the situation, your actions might have improved the justness of society in such a way, that you have ended up becoming one of society’s major injustices. In that case, you have done good.
For example: you might liberate all the Minmatar slaves from the Amarr, but lose the fight for liberty at the same time.
If you take as your short-term goal an obvious End such as liberating all Minmatar slaves, but you are really intending to fight for liberty, you should keep evaluating your current goals at all times and be prepared to deviate from it if harms your real goal.
It is easy to fight for concrete goals, it is hard to fight for abstract moral principles.
4 Likes