Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Ends and means (do you know what you are saying Paul?) Message-ID: <335@l5.uucp> Date: Sat, 14-Dec-85 23:54:48 EST Article-I.D.: l5.335 Posted: Sat Dec 14 23:54:48 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 19:34:58 EST References: <1538@hound.UUCP> <1671@cbsck.UUCP> Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 46 In article <1671@cbsck.UUCP> pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: > >Reason isn't exactly a floating abstraction, but it does need to operate >from certain precepts. Reason does not provide its own precepts. >I value reason because it allows me to apply the precepts that I accept. >(I think it is that best and most proven tool for the job). I don't value >it in itself. In the same way, I value a hammer because it allows me to >drive nails. Reason is a tool (like a hammer) that does not justify >itself. Its value is justified by its usefulness in performing >necessary tasks (e.g. doing ethics) according to our accepted precepts. >Everyone has these precepts, whether or not they recognize them as such. >The thing that I find hard to accept is the contention that precepts >are the product of reason itself. The necessity to drive nails is not >derived from a hammer. > I don't know whether you recognise this but the old ``I don't value the hammer in itself'' is the basis of all The Ends Justify the Means arguments. Extreme defenders of this view argue that you cannot make value judgements about *how* you do something, merely about certain things that you will accomplish. Then, if what you want to accomplish is very good you can do anything. Most people do not buy this extreme argument, but seem content to argue over whether or not the ends were very good. I think that the prevailance of such arguments reflects a funny desire in people to forget that their lives are ongoing. There is a real desire to see the things you want in life as ``objectives'' but not consider whether or not the method you use to try to achieve this objectives is appropriate. This is called ``being results-orientated'' many places. I think that this is precisely the wrong attitude which one can take with oneself. On a daily basis, it is not enough to simply want things, you must also want to deserve them when you get them. . But, also on a daily basis, such an attitude requires forgoeing using a wrench to pound in nails when you have a hammer around to use. It may not be that a hammer is valuable in itself, but to use the appropriate tool for the job *is*. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa