Means and ends debate may not always have morally right answers. Many chose morally wrong means to be on the right end. The right end can be defined as the individual benefit or collective benefit they are going to get.U see a footballer deliberately pretending on a football field to get a penalty kick for his team and questioning some of the means adopted by naxalites for the rights of the people who have been deprived of these by the state.The ground situation,past history and future benefits of a collective action in the above cases arguably justify the means adopted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
well as one of the principles suggest it all depends on the success of achieving the end. If the end is achieved by naxalites then their means are right otherwise they will be termed as using unfair means as they are being said right now. So the achievement of the end will determine the ethics of the means. After success the people will clothe the means in ethical mannner
All actions let alone collective actions are driven by the ultimate goal. The frightening thought today is that once we arrive at the consensus on the end goal, all the means become acceptable.
i would say that rule one applies more for naxalism in this context...the means are relative where as the ends are common...my moral compass would fluctuate rapidly as an outsider for the naxalite movement as compared to an insider...d farther we are away from the collective,the more moralistic we get...what are unfair means according to us, may be completely fair in their situation...
Post a Comment