The topic for this debate is "The end justifies the means."

DeltaChaos will argue for this proposition and will open the debate.
John Bull 1 will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included in any post. Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours. If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you, the winner will become our first Debating Champion for 2004.

Thanks again, Kano, for providing this platform for poetic pundits. Well, I’m here, so I gather that the funds made it safely into your account...

Greetings John Bull 1! It is truly an honor to meet you toe to toe on this flat-screen panel of battle. I’ve followed your words closely, and you are truly a scholar and a comedian. There is no one left in this tournament I would rather lose to than you. Of course, neither is there anyone I would rather DESTROY!

”The end justifies the means.”

Well, I guess it would depend on if the end were justified, then wouldn’t it? If so, then of course the means would be justified. If extreme dangers persist, if certain folly prevails, and if assured prevention is possible, then by any means necessary should the end be met. When challenges arise, so do solutions. And should our solutions not be allowed to confront the challenges we face, then may we be held accountable in our inaction for the wicked hand that fate deals us.

Time and time again have the few been sacrificed for the greater good of the many. And may those few who commit themselves as those means by which the greater end is achieved be remembered as the Great ones. Heroes and heroines that set the standard for greatness, and ensure that whenever new challenges arise, their memories will serve as the call to action for new greatness to overcome.

STOP THE MUSIC!!!…

Isn’t it only logical that any end rightly justifies the means by which it was produced? For if there were no means, there could certainly be no end result of them. This is merely a mathematical equation expressed in words where one side balances the other. If there are no means, then it is not possible to come to an end. And if there were no end, there absolutely could be no means leading to it. There is no argument that can dispute the fact that the end justifies the means, or vice-versa. One just simply cannot exist without the other.



This is DeltaChaos reporting from the maniacal throes of sleep deprivation…

Back to you, John…

First,I'd like to thank Kano for organising this Debate Tournament and the judges who have done a good job making sometimes difficult choices.I'd also like to wish DC,my opponent,goodluck.

This is the most fascinating topic I have yet debated and I think it will be the most entertaining to follow.

"The end justifies the means."

It is a big topic and to argue it properly we must be careful not to get lost because of it's size.For that reason I am going to lay out the topics I will be touching on before hand and in order.I do this to give my opponent the opportunity to think carefully on this topic with the benefit of understanding my full argument.

Shakespeare described the future as "the undiscovered country".It is unknown and unknowable.This proposition states that an action ("the means") can be justified because of an unknowable conclusion ("the end").This proposition seems obviously false and I have formulated three examples,one historical and two hypothetical,which I hope will show just how false it really is.

The means I have chosen is assasination.Three assasinations,one happened,one did not,and one might happen yet.

1/The first is the assasination of the Archduke Ferdinand,who's death is generally considered to have contributed to the start of the First World War.

2/The second is the assasination of Adolf Hitler,the twentieth centuries most obvious villain and the topic of many a hypothetical assasination here on ATS.

3/And the third is the assasination of Yasser Arafat,leader of the Palestinian Authority and sworn enemy of the Israeli state.

I believe these three examples when examined more fully will prove the unknowability of "the end" and an unknowable outcome can not be used to justify questionable means.

The cliché, ‘the end justifies the means’ is used typically as an argument for a plan of action that entails unconventional methods to create a better situation than that observed currently. Assassination could be a very good example of such a plan.

While it is generally accepted that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a causal event leading to WW1, further study reveals that it actually wasn’t. Tensions had been building for some time, and this event merely marked the breaking point. The assassination could be more accurately defined as the historically accepted place and point in time signaling the beginning of the war. This particular example doesn’t stand to reason when compared to the ‘end justifies the means’ proposition, because it was neither.

I have no comment for the other two examples but that both are hypothetical and will require much imaginative speculation to argue. I’ve decided that speculation probably isn’t going to produce great results on my side of the argument, so I’m going to try hard to avoid it. Real examples of the ends justifying the means are required for my stance. This particular debate, though, is the kind that we both could argue completely different instances and still make strong arguments for our respective positions.



So what I’m going to do is make my own list of cases that prove my argument, and let dogs lie, dead or otherwise…

The reason the proposition is a cliché relates to how it is commonly used in dialogue, which is usually similar to how I described above. But if we consider the actual implications of the statement, there are a lot of really common, everyday circumstances that can qualify it as valid.

In raising children, establishing a standard consequence of negative behavior for them to adhere is ultimately beneficial. While enforcing rules and expectations with a form of punishment is neither fun for the punisher nor the punished, it does set the example of reality that awaits. Enforcing boundaries with consequence teaches a young person the benefit of compliance that will allow them to make better choices as an adult. I am not a parent yet, but I know a lot of people who were once children, and I can testify to the differences in them based on whether they were held accountable when they were young. And in today’s children, I think we’re all seeing the end result of not employing these means.

Securing a comfortable retirement is one that requires the oft-times uncomfortable means of simply living within them. Fiscal self-sacrifice throughout ones working years, for most people, is the only means they have to make sure that they won’t eventually become burdensome to others. It sometimes means not having what is wanted, but in the end dignity proves more valuable than goods. This example embodies another current trend that I believe we all will feel pain from in the near future, and is distinctly a case for the end justifying the means.

The end benefits of a solid secondary education do not only justify their means, they absolutely require them. There is really only one way to get a degree, and that is to work hard, and front a lot of cash. If one chooses this end for themselves, which is the greater pay and better living that an education allows, then one must be willing to employ the means. And let me tell you, employing those means really bites sometimes!

Okay, here is a hypothetical from a personal standpoint that I’ll just throw in for good humor. If we were to realize the ends of a cleaner, safer, more enjoyable existence in our world, and create an environment that wouldn’t be as scary as it seems it will be for future generations, there will have to be some serious means. I won’t speculate what those means might be, other than to say that they probably won’t be welcomed by most, will be extremely unpopular, and certainly won’t be self-serving. But to reach this end, the means, however difficult, would necessarily be justified.

These examples may seem trivial when compared to assassination, and I certainly don’t intend to trivialize the debate itself, but I believe these examples clearly show that indeed the end justifies the means, however unspectacular. I did consider taking a stance on more violent issues, as they are typically the ones to which this proposition is applied, but I think I can do better. I have a couple of good friends deploying soon to an action that would be a great point of contest for my opponent, and I don’t want to think about it.

I apologize in advance for boring the fans, the judges, and my opponent to tears in the first Championship Round of the 2004 ATS debate season.

You know, JB I’m a history major, and that was one of the most succinct descriptions of that particular account I’ve ever seen. You just said in your few words what most high school texts don’t in so many pages. I don’t know what you do for bread, but you really have a knack, there. Nice!

Unfortunately though, in the context of the debate, what a tragic waste of a post! I see the point, but it’s been established that the actual causes for WW1 were much greater than that single event. It takes more than just a criminal act on the part of one shortsighted gangster to bring the world to its knees. And as a matter of intent, it can’t be argued that his aim was to start a world war, more likely a regional one. When we examine the results of his actions compared to his intent, it’s obvious that this doesn’t fit the idea of the end justifying the means because he didn’t even come close to realizing his goal. In fact, more the opposite of his intent was the outcome. Instead of his prideful, nationalistic vision for a greater Serbia, they just ended up creating a new country, Yugoslavia. Those certainly weren’t his ends. Princip was a failure. Besides, WW1 was the result of a contrivance set in motion before the assassination took place, and were Ferdinand to have lived, there would have been a war anyway. I don’t know, this just doesn’t seem like a very good example. Things like professional sports and the music industry seem more solid cases…



Now I’m just going to borrow an idea from a previous debate where I pointed out that a lot of law enforcement investigation allows the commission of crimes to take place in order to reel in the bigger fish. For police to allow crimes to take place as a part of their function seems paradoxical, but the method is effective and so here, the end justifies the means. It’s just the simple practice of surveillance of small players who will eventually mark the trail to the source. Like I pointed out there, if the police spent their time busting all the two-bit dime bag slingers, then there would be ten times as many to bust because their supply would never be cut.

There are examples in nature that prove that the end justifies the means. Just one of them is the fact that some coniferous trees and other plants more easily propagate the species when their seeds are subject to flame. From a human point of view, forest fires are bad things, but for the fireweed and the lodgepole pine, they are a way of life. This is just a function of an adapted ecosystem, whose ends always justify their means. The end of life in this case is also the means of life.

Another example is this matter of survival: If you’re in a situation where you have an infected open wound and you’re out of other alternatives, you could choose to allow flies to lay their eggs there. It seems disgusting maybe, but the fact is that the maggots will eat the infection, and possibly save a limb from gangrene or prevent death. If end is equal to continued existence, and means are equal to flesh eating parasites, well, I think it’s a simple equation. As they say in the profession, “Survival is the key”.

Oh man, here’s a simple one. “No pain, no gain”. This is the real cliché. But it’s the same thing for someone who wants to stay fit. If you want to be a hardbody, you’re gonna have to get your burn on. Simple as that. So if your goal is raunchy sex with people that look as good as you do, or if you just want to be able to throw others around more efficiently (word to the Banshee!), you’re going to have to partake in some self-inflicted pain. I hear this is also an effective means of living a longer, more enjoyable life!

There are positive examples of the end justifying the means everywhere. I guess the bottom line of that statement is that if you choose an end, you inherently choose the means if you are to achieve. Where we run into trouble is with people like our friend Princip, who’s means were of the limited mental capacity variety, and couldn’t see that they wouldn’t really change anything other than people's blood pressure. Maybe he would have met his ends more easily were he to choose a career as a military officer or a politician? Probably not – criminals generally aren’t too bright, and those others are.

JB, you gotta lend me that time machine - I want to go check out a Hendrix concert!

Hey John. Great story… WRONG FORUM! I think you were looking for collaborative fiction.

This reminds me of those conversations between bored joes on long field problems about what would happen if we could take a piece of modern weaponry back to an old war.

“Dude, just one Abrams!”, says Georgia.
Alabama replies, “No, just one machine gun! Just an M-60 and ten thousand rounds! That’s all I need!”
Georgia stands up, one fist in the air, the other down his pants. “THU SOWTH WEEL RAZ AGIN!!”
”GET DOWN, SHUT UP!!!”, screams lieutenant Dan…

Pointless…

But I get it, if Hitler was assassinated, we could have never come out of the depression, and three generations of Japanese men would have been spared the indignity of being born without their metaphorical genitalia, so on and so forth, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, BLAH!


Anyway, I’m glad I avoided the inevitable quagmire which is hypothetical-deductive reasoning, or the ‘what if’. So now back to the ‘what is’.

Since we’re debating the known ends relating to the means that produce them I will have to concede to the notion that the proposition stands as a moniker for all those instances where horrible acts of cruelty and injustice have led to what is now considered “better”. In fact, I will be so bold as to risk my credibility in this debate by stating that I do believe that those instances exist. But I feel I need to point out this reality to illustrate why it is sometimes beneficial that we make our mistakes in order to learn from them.

Touching on another aspect of war, or rather one its historical outcomes, I refer to the Geneva conventions and the law of land warfare. Much of the carnage that occurred in WW1 and 2 were results of what would be considered by today’s standards as crimes against humanity, and rightly so. If it weren’t for us actually carrying out these heinous acts against each other, there may not be the numerous agreements and treaties in place designed to prevent them and a standard for judgment of those who do choose these ends.

Mustard gas is a case for the ends not justifying the means. So are flamethrowers. One might be inclined to bring up nuclear weapons, and they would be right in doing so, but I say we’re still learning. Humans are young yet. The point I’m trying to make here by doubling back on myself is that many of the bad means we’ve employed have later been determined to be really bad mistakes, and that in most cases we try really hard to make sure that we don’t repeat them. And that’s my serious take on the other side of this argument.

Now, on the same subject, but back on the good guy side…

Some of the subjects of the Geneva Convention regard the rules for the fair treatment of prisoners of war. America’s military is VERY strict on these rules, and in fact run with an enhanced policy all their own. We train our soldiers well to treat captives with respect, but not for the reasons one might think. We don’t do it because we’re the good guys, or it’s the rule and we have to follow rules, no. We do it because it is a means to our ends. Our purpose for treating our prisoners well is self-preserving, possibly even selfish in nature.

Here are the points:

A prisoner who is beaten during interrogation is more likely to provide false intelligence, especially if he does not have the required information. Bad intel is can be very dangerous for our soldiers. A prisoner who is treated with the respect of a soldier of equal value is more likely to have the same respect for his captors, increasing the level of safety and security for them. A prisoner who is fed, cleaned, and whose medical needs are attended to regularly reduce the need for added attention in the future, keeping labor and logistics to a minimum. The fair and just treatment of foreign POWs has historically proved to be a great boon for international relations in post-conflict discussions. When the truth is known that enemy prisoners of war will be treated well by us, there is a greater likelihood of their surrender, which in turn increases the safety and protection of our forces.

These are just the examples that I can remember right now. Here the end is ultimately victory by ensuring a greater degree of safety and reduced casualty rate for friendly forces, as well as improved intelligence gathering and foreign relations. These are also the means by which we set ourselves apart in the world as a just and humane people. That is what I’d like to see as THE END.

JB1, I think we have a new record! Now this is debate as it should be. No planning, little research, just a mental quick-fire exercise. Thank you for the invigorating debate, it has been very motivational. It has also been my honor to meet a veteran and skilled fighter such as yourself in a championship match. Best of luck!

Ah, the pleasantries…

You’re right. I did miss the philosophical point altogether. Actually I wasn’t aware there was one. I guess my analytical mind just ran with the obvious literality of the statement. If I remember correctly it states, “The end justifies the means”. Now here we see that the ‘end’ part is at the beginning (which is ironic, huh?) suggesting that we’re looking at situations from the point of view of the results. And then analyzing the means by which those results were produced and trying to figure out if, well, the end justifies the means. Examining the means from the perspective of an end that doesn’t exist yet kind of defeats the purpose of the exercise, and is in my assessment contradictory to the proposition completely. But I’m no judge.

Which brings me to more pleasantries…

Kudos to the judges who have taken time out to read and decide on these debates. It is a big and important job. Thanks, and see ya next time around!

Kano. Thank you for conditioning my mind and… well, that’s it, isn’t it. Just my mind. Oh, and my typing nubs, too. Fostweisers on me!!!

Until we meet again,
DeltaChaos

"I guess my analytical mind just ran with the obvious literality of the statement."

Alas,how untrue.

Lets look one last time at the proposition.

"The end justifies the means."

Notice that the verb "to justify" is used in it's present tense form,"justifies"?

Used in this way the justification of "the means" is before an unknown "end"

Another completely different proposition would have been that the means justified the end.The verb "to justify" is seen here in it's past tense."The end" in this proposition is known and the statement is made with the benefit of hindesite.This completely different statement is plausible.

Yet another proposition might have been that the means justifies the aspired for end.This proposition implicitly accepts the unknowability of the end and uses a wished for goal as justification.This statement can also be true.Infact,it gives justification for every action we make.Bush's invasion of Iraq was justified by his aspiration for a peaceful and democratic Iraq it was not justified by an "end" he could not know.

Remember the proposition is that:

"The end justifies the means."

This is plainly a false statement.

Anyway,in conclusion let me thank my opponent and all those that have read this debate for taking the time.

Well done guys. I've inflated the judges and let them float off to do their work. Results in a day or so.

Right, our rubbery judging panel has handed in its verdict.

The winner of this debate, and the first Debating Champion for 2004 is John Bull 1 by a margin of 6-3. Congratulations to John Bull 1 and also a very hearty congratulations to DeltaChaos, who has done an excellent job to make it to the final. Having competitors of such class in the final made for an extremely enjoyable debate. Thankyou both of you.

Here are some of the Judges comments.

A VERY entertaining debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the efforts of both, especially the creativity of John Bull, but found the real life arguments of DeltaChaos more concrete and ultimately compelling.

We have thousands of words spent on what, in summary, was a one sentence VS.. one sentence battle....slightly ironic, since it was a philosophical cliché being debated.
We had:
Pro(P): "Now here we see that the ?end? part is at the beginning suggesting that we?re looking at situations from the point of view of the results".
Con(C): "Any questionable action can not be justified by an end that is unknown and unknowable".
Both P & C are valid. What differentiated them & gave the argument to C? The closing argument of C detailing the tense - if the P & C arguments are passed through a crucible of tense, the tense as stated in the argument, C is more true.
For both contestants, throw out all but the closing statements & you would have had a most excellent debate in an abbreviated form.

Two fitting and deserving fighters arrived at the finals, and unfortunaltely, one had to lose. This was a very tough decision, as it was close enough that I had to read the debate twice to come to my conclusion.
DC cited several viable examples and presented an awesome case and as usual, JB1 captivated me with his clever style, I felt as though I was there, watching him speak.
But alas, I had to choose the one who I felt made the best argument. DC's presentation was excellent and it almost worked for me, but in the end, I had to place my vote with JB1, as his argument was ultimately the better one in my opinion. JB1 argued the core of this debate, leaving the simple and less fundemental examples aside.

Great debate,as the final should be. Both fought it out to the end. But in the end I feel that DC came through on top. His debating skills are top notch,witty, and informative. DC stayed on top through the entire tournament,and in this judges opinion,the best debator.
Good job JB1, sorry about the mud in your time machine,my bad.

The opening was great from both of you, however I felt that John Bull1 had the edge in this round. I was especially impressed with his laying out a direction for such an open ended topic.
Round 1 Delta Chaos, why did you apologize "...in advance" for such a well written post in this round? John Bull1, your rebuttal was truly imaginitive, and I read with great ease, as your intentions still flow forward so smooth.
Round 2 John Bull1, a superior, hypothetical situation to ponder upon. Glad I didn't pull the trigger!
Round 3 Delta Chaos "...pointless..." Yes, I agree. Reason? First is that half of the people reading this debate do not understand your attept in trying to convey a southern accent. Second, I have ties, and have resided in both Georgia and Alabama.
However, "Here are the points" was well written, and I enjoyed.
I wish to add that this debate was most interesting! My hat is off to both of you, I sure enjoyed.

This was a well argued debate. I was sad to see delta chaos concede his position by agreeing that horrific war weapons were a case of the means not justifying the end. He was charged with debating the opposite.

DeltaChoas was wise to point out the beneficial side effects of horrible mistakes (mainly realizing just how horrible they are), but that contradicts his argument!

John Bull 1 took an interesting tack with his narrative stories. However, he didn't say very much that was new. I found his argument to be slightly repeititious. But his philisophical argument is strong: in the face of an unknown future, how can one justify means to an end?

In my judgement, because DC conceded way to much ground and JB1 points out the impossibility of justify unknown action, I raise JB1's debating boxing hand.

Wow! Great debate there guys, however JB1 swung it very much in his favour for two reasons. First, although DC had the opening statement it was actually JB1 who threw down the gauntlet first of where he was going to take this debate, and effectively put him in the driving seat. DC passed up the glorious opportunity to put himself in the driving seat first but passed it up, this in a debate is unacceptable.
Second is JB1's awesome writing skills. He didn't just argue his point, trying to ram it home to the reader like DC, he instead decided to invite the reader on his journey with him. Reading it was like participating in it with JB1, and as a result was utterly enthralling and fantastic to read. DC could never match up to this in the approach he took in my opinion.

Well done guys. A great end to a great tournament. Thankyou on behalf of everyone for an entertaining and educational time.

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Kano]