A Moral Dillema

[revolutionman]

I have also posted this at BTM (http://www.breakthematrix.com), but I am hoping for as many opinions as possible.

I've had this conversation twice, with different people and have been on both sides of the issue in the last week. The issue is: Fighting fire with fire.

Our adversaries assault the public with a barrage of unsavory and some times immoral tactics in order to gain political favor. As insidious as these tactics may be, they are not illegal, or unconstitutional, also, they are extremely effective.

So my question to you all is,

Does the End justify the Means if the means are unsavory and immoral, but do not break the law or violate any ones rights?

An over simplified example:
If a liberty minded Congressman were to sponsor a bill filled with Neo Con or "Liberal" nonsense but then slip something securing personal freedoms or championing personal responsibility into the fine print, would he be considered a hypocrite or would his actions be justified by his noble intentions?

[SnappleLlama]

If he were truly noble, he wouldn't be sponsoring a bill containing neocon "nonsense." ;)

Do you have a real-life example, concerning a particular congressman? Perhaps I'm being too hasty with my assessment!

[micahnelson]

Until people are educated, we cannot achieve victory. Our goal should be to secure the weak minds of Americans who have lost their love of liberty. That is the true threat to liberty, a population willing to trade her away for security.

Sneaking in laws here and there won't make much difference. We already have the constitution as the highest law of the land and it is being ignored.

The power of politicking is no friend of liberty. As George Washington said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." We should win our battles in the minds, not the courts and capitols.

My take though, it takes all kinds to have a revolution.

[acptulsa]

For the most part, the pols consider the ends to justify any means, and the means are seldom if ever moral, just or even defensible. And I think we're going to have to learn to bow to political realities before we can ever hope to change them.

Sad but true.

[Original_Intent]

I personally am not an ends justify the means person.

If the end is just then there is a just path to reach that end. Ends justify the means usually you do not end up at the "end" that you were trying to reach thru questionable means.

People with noble intentions do not need to bury their intentions under a bunch of what may well be popular rubbish. In fact, they should make every effort to make their intentions as clear to as many people as possible.


That's my 2 bits.

[Truth Warrior]

"If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself."

[acptulsa]

"If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself."

This is a point. Not that there should be no long term thinking or that there shouldn't be a plan, but remember how often we've seen cures worse than the disease. Very often all that is needed is a way to help or just encourage the free market find a cure with little or no side effects. Standing by our principles can lead to better answers to the questions of interest at any given moment.

[Conza88]

“The order of nature is that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue.”
~ Thomas Jefferson

“The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.”
Thucydides

There is my position. And there should be yours.