I'm sure we've all heard the reasoning that "the ends justify the
means". Well, how much of this is true? I'm sure those of us who
take an active role in this blog would say it is not true or just. But
is it all black and white? Do higher goals justify more less than
savoury means than lower goals? Again, I would say we all would
reject that. But when it comes to the highest goal - namely
salvation - is this still true?
Now, logically, you can't use immoral means to get to Heaven.
So, that means the ends don't justify the means in this particular
case. But, maybe you can use means that people would find
distasteful for salvation, right? So the ends justify some of the
means? Well, let's see:
What exactly do we define as "the means"? The means are the
action(s) used to bring a certain outcome. Okay, so what means
are distasteful? Who is the judge; and how do we know if they're
allowable? Is this question really worth asking? Maybe not. But I
think it's worth mentioning in our day and age, when we can be
deceived into using immoral (not distasteful) ways to bring a moral
outcome. But, since God uses trials and evil times to bring good,
is it still true that the ends don't justify the means? Maybe it's just
that we can't use that philosophy.
3 comments:
"Less than savoury means" What does this mean?
In morality, we are concerned with right and wrong, not whether or not we like or savor something. If you are talking about an artistic topic (such as whether or not we can use an 'evil' chord to get an effect), then I would think that whether or not the ends justifies the means is not a moral issue. If it's not a moral issue, then we are not bound by what you say, though what you say still would have value depending on whether our work of art was supposed to have quality in itself or quality for the obtaining of some end.
"Maybe you can use means that people find distasteful for salvation." I am guessing that distaseful is the opposite of savoury and not the same as evil or immoral. If I am right, then the answer is yes you can; you do not commit a sin if you do something somebody doesn't like to get them or yourself into heaven.
God does use evils to bring about good, but He does not cause the evils. Because the means have happened whether they are justified or not, someone using them in this way is not the same as the false idea of a good end justifying evil means.
This post is not relevant unless someone will apply it to art, and I highly encourage you to do so. Keep it. If you don't write the art part, I will.
I agree with everything you say,
but one thing isn't very clear
to me. Why does it have to apply
to art? I thought this was a
philosophy blog (with a minor in
the arts you could say :-) ).
I suppose the questions I brought
up were pretty easy ones, but I'm
running out of things to post!
No, this blog is not a philosophy blog. It is a philosophy-of/and-art blog. But the "/" does not mean simply and/or. It means that "and" is optional when predicated of the art half of the statement, but may not be used when predicated of the philosophy half of the statement only. Diagram that sentence. Hee Hee!
Like I said before, keep the article. I will do something with it.
Post a Comment