Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!ames-lm!al
From: al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Means justifying the ends
Message-ID: <125@ames-lm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jan-84 02:02:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.125
Posted: Tue Jan 24 02:02:52 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jan-84 01:57:10 EST
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 14

There's been a great deal of discussion on the net about the ends
justifying the means, mostly in reference to J. Jackson.

Well, there's a lot of agreement about the ends justifying the means,
but DO THE MEANS JUSTIFY THE ENDS?  If someone is pure of heart,
nobly motivated, does only what's right and thereby causes thousands
to suffer and die, is the end justified by the noble means?  

This is not hypothetical.  Britain and France did not attack Germany when
Hitler invaded the Reinland.  If they had, WWII might well have been
avoided.  They used only 'acceptable' means, i.e., diplomacy,
and millions died.  Were the peace loving people and leaders of 
England and France justified?  Is the suffering of millions justified
by the 'correct' behavior of the West's leaders?