NationStates Jolt Archive

i wanna know your opinions. i believe it does not.
if you were in the situation where your country brang in conscription. and you were ordered to fight for something you didnt believe in what would you do????

Uh...ignore me.

And I'd be a draft dodger...

There is no such word as 'brang'.
Except as a very rare surname.

Uh...ignore me.

And I'd be a draft dodger...brang isn't a word btw, did you know that Kry?

i wanna know your opinions. i believe it does not.
if you were in the situation where your country brang in conscription. and you were ordered to fight for something you didnt believe in what would you do????
I'm afraid I must disagree with Machiavelli. It does not.

In general, hell no.

One Must do whatever it takes to stay in power. Yes I agree. :headbang: :sniper: :eek: :gundge:

I'd be a draft dodger for sure.

When we do something we know is wrong because someone told us to do it, what does that make us? :(

In a word, no.

No matter how good your goal is, you compromise it if you buy it with unjust actions.

Just because everyone else says "no," I'm inclined to say "yes." However, I'd be lying. Ends do not justify means. For example, as a 24 year old male living in the United States, if the U.S. were to institute a draft for troops in Iraq (a proposal so highly unlikely as to be a damn near impossibility), I'd get the hell out. All of this is assuming that the true end here is a democratic Iraq... which is, of course, by no means necessarily accurate.

OF COURSE IT DOES!!!! How do you guys think I run CENA??

Kidding - nope, it sure don't.

does the end justify the means?
Nope.

The more important question to ask is, "Does the means justify the end?"

The rest is silence.

I've always found this to be a strange question.

The end means the 'result' ergo if the end is a good one, how could the means employed to reach it not be?

The end isnt merely the success or failure of an aimed at goal, but rather the sum total effect of the means employed in pursuit of that goal. If the goal is to have a perfect, productive and happy race, but the means employed are genocide, them the end (if the goal is achieved) is a perfect, productive happy race, and genocide. Whatever goal is being aimed at is usually only part of the end, and clearly most people wouldnt accept any end that included genocide as been justified in itself, much less justification for any means employed to arrive at such an end.

Means are not bad unless they have harmful effects, and harmful effects are a component of the end and must be considered as such, when weighing up the worth or goodness of the end.

The more important question to ask is, "Does the means justify the end?"

The rest is silence.
I suppose that is more important.