Philo topic: Doing bad things for good means?

[Egeides]

I am not sure my topic is correctly written because of my English so I'll explain my question:

Is a good goal worth using ways that are themselves bad? Can we do good by using ways that are themselves bad? Where is the limit?

Ghandi for exemple refused a violent revolution, even when some people around him believed in it. Even when Great Britain didn't have as many power in India (occupied with Hitler) Ghandi was totally any use of violence to take power. He had no acceptance of violence, NONE. Would this have worked with Hitler? Maybe he would have simply killed everyone, or would have his soldiers see the non-sense and reverse? Where is the limit of using bad ways for good means?

[Acriku]

People who are not able to use bad means for a greater good are not able to lead a country, lead a group of people, or lead themselves. They are naive. Only if the end is greater than the means, should we do bad things to do something good. For the greater good.

[Edric O]

Sometimes you have no choice but to fight fire with fire. A policy of non-violence would never work with the likes of Hitler, for example. He would have simply slaughtered them all...

[Acriku]

Was it for the greater good to do what he did? For him, yes. To steal from all of the Jews to fund the war, and then exploit them by forcing them into labor. But whose good was it? His. Not everybody else's. For the greater good, to me, means for the good of all humanity. Not for myself.

[Egeides]

Acriku: About leading groups and countries, the problem is that some that used totally pacific methods got a high efficiency: Ghandi and Jesus. Are there cases viable somewhere else too?

I can also give the exemple of Romans just before the republic, with monarchy. The landlords and rich people didn't wanted to let some loose. Everyone decided they stopped working for them: they looked silly because they'd have no food or anything by themselves and got obliged to contribute.

[Acriku]

I guess I should have been more explanatory. Leaders lead a group, to do something. Solving complicated social issues, etc. It is naive to think that non-violence measures could solve such things, or actually do something productive. Atleast, that's what I believe a leader should do. It's entirely possible for someone to inspire someone to do something, but who is doing it? The person. The person just had to have enough inspiration or courage, bravery, etc, to do something s/he could have done by any other source of these things.

That example is a pretty good one, but it is an example of doing bad things (i.e. not working, and destroying yourself) for the greater good (whatever they were "striking" for).

[SurlyPIG]

You just have to ask two questions;

First, are the people you're dealing with too inhuman to respond to anything but force? IE Hitler or Saddam. If you walked peacefully in Berlin or Baghdad Gandhi-style, you'd be killed on the spot. The British people certainly weren't saints at the time, but they are a civilized society and they responded to the sheer humanity and bravery of Gandhi and his followers.

Second, IF force is necessary, do the ends justify the means? For each option of force you have, look at the probable results if you use it and if you don't.

[Egeides]

erm.. they reacted by mass killings ACE

We're talking of many thousands persons, we're talking about ripping Bangladesh from something like 1/3 of its population and so on. They weren't better, they did it in an organized fashion.

[SurlyPIG]

LOL they didn't slaughter all the protesters! Certainly not the British directly. There were some pretty barbaric people working under the crown at the time. But most were native Indians.

[Egeides]

They were taking some people from there so they get less opposition and build some sort of hierarchy to their advantage (the top people being on their side). The lower grades in colonial troops were natives while higher grades (the direction and so on) was british. But anyway, with the orders that were given, massacres were commited during colonial times. Yes, protesters were shot at. Some people that didn't even protest were killed and so on, as a measure of repression so that everyone would follow the new order, for new conquests, etc.

[Acriku]

I was in the philosophical mode while bagging groceries tonight, and just figured something out : We are discussing two different subjects here.

1) Should we do bad things for a greater end?

and 2) Can passive means actually do something?

I was assuming all throughout this post that the bad things that are in question of doing are necessary at the current time. And then, the question would be is it morally right to use bad means towards a greater end? Well, leaders when they arrive at a situation in which it becomes necessary to use "bad" means for a greater end, will be able to use such bad means. Anybody who can't, is not a good leader. A leader must be able to sacrifice himself, or anybody else in the group, but a non-violent, or passive, person would not be able to do that, and thus an ineffective leader.

[Egeides]

Acriku: Do you think Gandhi (or Jesus) wouldn't be able to rule a country if they wanted so? Wasn't Gandhi directing India with some others, for a short moment?

[Acriku]

No I don't think so. Not a successful one, anyway. Other countries would destroy it before they become economically stable, if that even happens.

[nemafakei]

This is something I wrote while desperately trying to avoid writing an equation...

If the least productive choice is taken, then the most harm is done, relative to the benefits, and if the most beneficial alternative is seized upon, the outcome will be more positive than all other options. The morality and practicality of each choice can, here be taken into account, as effects of each decision. As such, it is logical that only the most beneficial is justified, and others, especially the least beneficial are unjustified in comparison, and, assuming all options are accounted for, this comparison can be can be considered effectively of absolute value.

That is to say, when the most likely result from the end is greater than the loss due to the means, in relation to all other available options (including inaction), then the end justifies the means. If this is not fulfilled, then the means is not justified, because by failing to take the best option, is to opt for the most destructive course – which is in no way justifiable.

[Acriku]

Pretty much sums it up for myself as well, it indeed is the most logical route to take.

[Egeides]

I agree also. So let me ask this question: Was Ghandi's way the best, if we compare it to the other ways? If it is, why was it and in which other situations would it be?

[Acriku]

Best conscerning what? Best philosophy? Perhaps, depends on the situation. I have no time right now to reply in full, so I'll be back tonight.

[Edric O]

Just wanted to say that I completely agree with Nema.

[Caid Ivik]

St.Dominic Savio said he would rather die than commit a sin. However, in politics sometimes there aren't such possibilities. Morale should be, but some values are slightly different. In politics is most valueable action, preventing any bad result of passivity due to moral unacceptability. Passivity of government can lead to weakness. And weak state cannot prevent civil unease. See Gandhi - he was killed by a fanatical opposer, who wasn't limited by law, because police was unusable.