Do the ends justify the means?

[87chevy]

sometimes, not always. I think at least, the guy who walked by that dark alley should have been required to try and call 911. that does not endanger himself in anyway. I can't believe the story about the 3yr old! please tell me you made that up!

It (the end) does sometimes justify the means. But i think danoff has a point, it can also be the cause that justifies the means. Have you guys seen John Q it think that's what is called. where Denzel Washington takes part of a hospital hostage to save his kid? Was he justified? I find it hard to say no. Good movie, by the way, you should watch it if you haven't seen it.

would capping one person, to save 100, or 1000 be worth it?

 

[Danoff]

would capping one person, to save 100, or 1000 be worth it?

Worth it is not necessarily the same thing as justified. Even saying "A reasonable person would do it" is not the same thing as being justified. The question to answer is "is it right?".

Have you guys seen John Q it think that's what is called. where Denzel Washington takes part of a hospital hostage to save his kid? Was he justified? I find it hard to say no.

Emphatically no. Not at freaking all, no way was he justified.

 

[87chevy]

Emphatically no. Not at freaking all, no way was he justified.

ok, for arguments sake, humor me and tell me what you would have done in his shoes.

 

[ledhed]

I would have shot the hostage taker in the head.

 

[Danoff]

ok, for arguments sake, humor me and tell me what you would have done in his shoes.

I can tell you what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't assume that I had the right to force people to perform a service for me. I wouldn't assume I could rob people of their freedom just because I had a sick kid.

The proper action to be taken against someone who takes a bunch of people in a hospital hostage is for him to be arrested if possible, killed if necessary to save the hostages.

 

[87chevy]

well didn't ask for what you wouldn't do, did I? yeah, if was a cop i would do my job, but i didn't ask you what you would have done as a cop either! geeze, way to dance around a question.

 

[Danoff]

well didn't ask for what you wouldn't do, did I? yeah, if was a cop i would do my job, but i didn't ask you what you would have done as a cop either! geeze, way to dance around a question.

There is no way to answer the question you posed. You'd invent a scenario that would cut me off at every pass until you basically told me I had to take people hostage or watch my kid die. That wouldn't happen in the real world. Regardless, I wouldn't go around forcing people to help me.

 

[87chevy]

uh, no, i used a very specific scenario in a movie. that's the only scenario i asked you to put yourself in.

 

[Danoff]

uh, no, i used a very specific scenario in a movie. that's the only scenario i asked you to put yourself in.

I believe I answered your question.

 

[Duke]

I believe so too. Saying what you woulkdn't do in this case pretty much defines what you would do, at least enough for the purpose of this question. You definitely answered the question.

 

[Arwin]

I believe so too. Saying what you woulkdn't do in this case pretty much defines what you would do, at least enough for the purpose of this question. You definitely answered the question.

Yep. You said you'd let your kid die and not take people hostage. Same for me, I think, but bearing in mind that I don't have kids. I'm thinking this is what I'd do because for one I'm just too much of a coward and too afraid to die in the process myself. Still, people do the weirdest things to protect the people they love and I don't care much to be tested.

 

[Carl.]

Looking forward to it.

Currently reading Atlas Shrugged, 106 pages so far... Dagny reminds me a lot of people I've worked with, even myself a few years ago.

I bought Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and two books by Chomsky (you should have seen the look the cashier gave me at the bookstore..."Interesting selection", he said. - I've been officialy declared schizophrenic.

So, I'll continue my reading before going on with the debate, since it revolves around the same issues. Sorry for the delays (you and Duke), but I was out in the wild, on a lakeshore for a few days... and I'm going to another kind of wilderness tomorrow (NY City). Great vacations so far.

 

[///M-Spec]

Currently reading Atlas Shrugged, 106 pages so far... Dagny reminds me a lot of people I've worked with, even myself a few years ago.

I bought Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and two books by Chomsky (you should have seen the look the cashier gave me at the bookstore..."Interesting selection", he said. - I've been officialy declared schizophrenic.

So, I'll continue my reading before going on with the debate, since it revolves around the same issues. Sorry for the delays (you and Duke), but I was out in the wild, on a lakeshore for a few days... and I'm going to another kind of wilderness tomorrow (NY City). Great vacations so far.

Not many people would go through the trouble of reading a 1400ish paged novel (depending on the edition) simply to be better informed about an opposing opinion's point of view in an Internet debate forum. I find this pretty admirable, JP. Just wanted you to know 👍


M

 

[ledhed]

Your reading Noam Chomsky and Ayn Rand ? If your not schizophrenic you will be . Talk about opposites...'ol chomsky is totally paranoid and IMO hopelessly out of date..try to get him to explain the failure of communisim for example..

 

[///M-Spec]

Talk about opposites...'ol chomsky is totally paranoid and IMO hopelessly out of date..try to get him to explain the failure of communisim for example..

..or at the very least get Chomsky to explain why Pol Pot's regime was such a great thing for about couple million dead Cambodians. I believe he was quite the supporter of ol 'brother number one'.


M

 

[Carl.]

Not many people would go through the trouble of reading a 1400ish paged novel (depending on the edition) simply to be better informed about an opposing opinion's point of view in an Internet debate forum. I find this pretty admirable, JP. Just wanted you to know 👍


M

Thanks M

I had a few apprehensions on Ayn Rand after seeing some web sites about objectivism, some of them reminded me of scientology gospel, but so far the book (Atlas Shrugged) is an interesting reading. The only critic I have until now is that the characters seem to be rather bold, but I'm enjoying it.

As for becoming schizophrenic, I'll try to avoid it... I've read a bit of Rogue Nations by Chomsky, and one thing I'm not confortable with is that his claims are either very hard to prove or to debunk, since we won't have access to all the information to make a definite judgement, so we're left with a lot of speculations... But I think the questions he raises are worthy to be asked.

But so far as opposite these authors might be, the books do not really talk about the same issues, even if they are closely linked... one write about foreign and international policies, and the other write about economical and political system ideals for a nation... I would need better, more specific opposites (and something less radical than the communist manifesto)

On foreign policies, I have mentioned Sleeping with the devil, from Robert Baer in another thread, which is very convincing, due to the on-hand experience of the subject by its author.

Okay... have to try to get some sleep now, before we leave

Be back in a few days.

 

[Danoff]

The only critic I have until now is that the characters seem to be rather bold, but I'm enjoying it.

Not to mention psychic. Consider them caricatures.

 

[Duke]

Exactly. The things to rmember about Rand as a novelist are 1) she's actually Russian-born, which makes her long-winded; and 2) she's a Romantic with a capital R. This means she is purposely illustrating mankind as Very Good or Very Evil, just like Romantic painters or poets would. Critics have tried to argue that this means she's a hack author, but it's on purpose.

One last thing on the subject of Rand: ignore the sex scenes. Even lifelong scholars of her work make no claim of understanding how they fit into the rest of her philosophy.

 

[Arwin]

One last thing on the subject of Rand: ignore the sex scenes. Even lifelong scholars of her work make no claim of understanding how they fit into the rest of her philosophy.

I haven't read her, but with most literary currents it usually refers to the primitive man, who is still an animal at heart. It doesn't always fit in with the rest of any work or our lives, but that is because the primitive more and more frequently comes into conflict with the rational. That conflict is inherent to the human condition of being a civilised animal and comes back in just about everything, including the Romantics. The only possible exceptions I can think of are the more abstract minded ones, like Plato, which fittingly has come to coin the Platonic relationship. Plato still recognised the animal in man, but saw it as something that needed to be ultimately (as in completely) transcended.

 

[rjensen11]

As long as this thread doesn't turn into a thread about Hiroshima-Nagasaki....

 

[Danoff]

Plato still recognised the animal in man, but saw it as something that needed to be ultimately (as in completely) transcended.

Not only do I think it can't be supressed or eliminated - I don't think it should be. I think our basic natrual selection-given instinct is one of our best atributes. It's gotten us where we are today.

 

[Duke]

I haven't read her, but with most literary currents it usually refers to the primitive man, who is still an animal at heart. It doesn't always fit in with the rest of any work or our lives, but that is because the primitive more and more frequently comes into conflict with the rational. That conflict is inherent to the human condition of being a civilised animal and comes back in just about everything, including the Romantics. The only possible exceptions I can think of are the more abstract minded ones, like Plato, which fittingly has come to coin the Platonic relationship. Plato still recognised the animal in man, but saw it as something that needed to be ultimately (as in completely) transcended.

With any other philosopher/author, I would say you are 100% correct. But Rand the philosopher is vehemently opposed to the concept of the mind/body split. According to her Objectivist philosophy there is no separation between the two; there is no conflict between the needs of mind and body.

Given the non-coercive, mutual-consent nature of the interactions of her heroes otherwise, there is an overt violence to some of her sex scenes that doesn't fit in.

 

[ledhed]

she just wants some rough love ..thats her thing..tie me up tie me down...take me you big brute..hehehehe always wondered how the sex fit into her books, the scenes did not seem like they belonged.

 

[Danoff]

she just wants some rough love ..thats her thing..tie me up tie me down...take me you big brute..hehehehe always wondered how the sex fit into her books, the scenes did not seem like they belonged.

It's pretty ironic actually because she goes on and on about how man is supposed to be free, but her women are all slaves.

 

[Duke]

Well, sexually, yes: but otherwise, no. And after the initial encounter, in all cases, it is highly consensual. It's just that first time that borders on rape.

 

[Danoff]

Well, sexually, yes: but otherwise, no. And after the initial encounter, in all cases, it is highly consensual. It's just that first time that borders on rape.

I'd say otherwise yes too. In most cases the women turn into servants at home for their men - cooking and cleaning.

...and then there's the disgusting way she has them have sex with people they don't like. It's pretty hard to read in some cases actually.

 

[ledhed]

and then there's the disgusting way she has them have sex with people they don't like.

You mean they are married ?