Do the Means justify the Ends

Do the ends justify the means?  Can we do whatever we want, need to do or think is necessary to accomplish a goal? Is there “grey area” as to what is acceptable being sacrificed to accomplish something? Are some things “sacred,” not to be violated; but, other morals or ideals less important and we can ignore them when they become inconvenient? 

Let’s pretend that we sat on a committee that made law.  We see a need to create a law that will protect a marginalized people, but there is strong opposition to the creation of that law.  Would it be okay to lie to the opposition, maybe promise something we have no intent on fulfilling, to get their vote to pass the law?  Even if it is something insignificant or corrupt or maybe even if we saw that thing as an evil?  What harm would it do to our cause if we got the Noble law passed and didn’t do this other thing that has no value or even goes against our values? 

Another scenario, you need a little extra money to spend for the holidays.  Because so many people are taking the holidays off your employer needs someone to work overtime and cover those missing hours. You volunteer to work the overtime.  Is it okay to show up and just do the minimum?  Maybe take some extra breaks or longer on your breaks because you are working longer hours?  Maybe you get tired and fall off the production pace.  You’re still working but maybe not as hard as you could be.  Is that fair to your employer? 

For the most part, I abide by the rules and laws of man, for the most part.  Mark 12:17 (Darby Bible) “And Jesus answering said to them, pay what is Caesar’s to Caesar, and what is God’s to God. And they wondered at him.”  I also believe, Matthew 16:26 (Darby Bible) “For what does a man profit, if he should gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” So, I seldom have conflicts that I can not understand the “right” course of action or decision once I am calm, centered and not only understand the situation but how the situation will affect me and my ideals or beliefs.

There are times when man’s laws defy, disregard or are in direct opposition to the ideals and beliefs that protects and nourishes my soul.  Let me say that for those that follow “the path” we were promised that to do so we would experience many difficulties in life.  Life itself would be hard and unfair.  That we would not find solace and peace in the world but only in the one.  That said, I know that there will be times when “doing the right thing” will not only be hard but I will suffer for it.  I have chosen this path and the consequence that come with it. 

So, when those times do come where man’s law is in opposition to what I know to be right, I am at peace with the course of action I must take or decision I know I need make and/or follow. Knowing these things, I have no issue with the difficult decisions, and I can go forward having an internal peace.  Not because I believe my soul is saved by my actions.  Not because I feel I have “earned” some kind of redemption or that anything I do is going to reward or benefit me. It is because I know that I have not acted against what I believe.  I know that although my body may suffer the judgement of man, my soul is in my keeping and that God is the only one whose judgement has any bearing on my soul. I am at peace internally because I know that I have left my soul to and for God’s judgement and I have done the best that I could to live as an example for his law.  His law is love and his gospel is peace.

So, I ask you, do the ends justify the means?  What ends are you considering?  What means are you following to reach your end.  Do you live with peace, in peace?  If your soul were judged right now, would you feel shame, regret… fear the judging?  Or do you live in denial, believing you are the ultimate arbiter of your soul dictating what is right and wrong?

Or do people that concern themselves with things that can not be seen, measured or proven, like the soul, live in delusion?  Are they fools that might deserve ridicule, mocking and quite possibly some level of moderation and censorship so that they can not harm themselves or others.  Maybe even outlaw their ridiculous beliefs that seem to cause so many issues because they are at odds with what you want or feel needs be?All the things to ask questions about and discuss.  

These are good thoughts Wes , i am so confused by what is considered good law and intend these days , am i just to ignore the needs of the many for the demands of the few , do i let my government endanger children and women by letting them be exposed by laws that erase their very essence because a minority can tell us that they are what they feel they are? Can i stand by and see people getting more and more apathic to their surroundings disconnecting from reality going ballistic because others dont indulge in their fantasy that we need more humans and that there is nothing that you cannot do or become. The makeble lie that we have everything under control paralizes us and makes us numb , canonfudder. 

I am not ignoring , i am recording and noticing and adjusting my behaviour and thus becoming more of a rebel , i will not trade in reality and facts for the feelz of a few. 

Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” 

I am as left as they come on the political spectrum but even i cannot change biology haha 

You said, "I am as left as they come..." just out of curiosity, have you ever taken one of those political compass test's?  Like anything, I'm sure there are some that are more accurate than others.  So, I would take a few and see how they average.  At least that's what I did.  LOL 

I always end up very near the center of the political map.  Always more Libertarian than Authoritarian. I think the reason for that is that I do believe in small government, especially Federal with local and state governments having more direct influence over the individual, but I do recognize that people are flawed and there needs to be mechanisms in place to insure the safety and equal opportunity for citizens.  And depending on the questions I will range from being slightly conservative to slightly Liberal. I think the reason for this is that I do believe in the Founding documents of the US and feel they were designed to be one of the fairest means of governing ever. That are rights are God given and that a governments role is to serve the people and protect are rights, never to infringe upon them.  But... I do not think that these test take that view into perspective.  So, the protection of those rights, and non government interference, guaranties our ability to have equal opportunity, civil liberty and our ability to pursue our own happiness (so long as those pursuits do not infringe on others pursuit, IE your liberty and rights stop at you and are not enforceable on others).

And, I completely agree that todays culture seems to have thrown logic and reason out the window and replaced them with reaction and feelings.
 
Questions I would would pose, based on the original post, what steps should be taken to rectify the current situation?  Do we have the right to impose our beliefs on others, even if it is for the "good" of the majority?  I'm sure "they would argue the same. How "extreme" should responses be if change was not forthcoming or sudden enough to have a meaningful effect?  And would those actions, responses, be justified? 

I have always tried to influence my sphere by providing facts and getting people to think about what they believe why. That is, for those willing to listen.  And from what I can noticeably see, it has had little effect to oppose the running narrative. In short, I "feel" like I have mead little difference and the world will be left an impoverished shit hole for my daughter and granddaughter to inherit. And yes, I believe that we are only stewards borrowing the world from future generations as prior generations were stewards who left us whit where we are now. 

Sorry the response was so slow. I cannot seem to spell this morning and had to continuously go back and  fix my mistakes.  I still have arguments with the autocorrect functions on computers.  They have been programmed to, from what I was taught, believe improper punctuation is correct.  For example, when creating a compound sentence the coordinating conjunction has a semicolon before, a space, the coordinating conjunction and then a comma before continuing with the next sentence.  In a series divided by commas the last object in the series has a conjunction before it and no comma.  At the end of a sentence, when typing, double space. I'm guessing these rules were too difficult for the younger generations and have been changed.  

Yes i have taken 3 test
America --Libertarian
England --Conservative Left
Netherlands -- Middle Left
​​​​​​Its weird how i percieve myself as such a lefty , i am pro choice but also pro life, i put sience and logic above everything but also lov​​​e myth   Its weird how that left/right dogma works huh?
 

Speaking of abortions, I would not consider myself "pro choice."  But, that is mostly because of some of the extreme positions carried by some.  I do consider myself to be "pro life," but, I do not agree with abolitioning abortions.  I do believe that abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that has its place.  I do not believe in killing a child because its existence is an inconvenience. In my opinion, life begins at conception and the child is the only one that does not get a say or have a voice in this debate.  I'm pretty sure if you ask any person, "if your mother thought that having you would had been an inconvenience, even if she could give you up for someone else to care for after your birth, would you have preferred to be aborted?" they would say no.  

All that said, I do believe there are reasons and circumstances where the procedure is the best option.  So, laws that completely legalize or criminalize the procedure are not only unreasonable but just as criminally negligent as their counterpart. A long, reasonable debate needs to be done to decide a reasonable course of action and the outcome should be restricted to a local level.  IE one size fits all is out! 

I also don't think that government should have anything to do with marriage!  That should be between the two people and the religious person they want to conduct the ceremony... if the two people even want a religious person to conduct a ceremony.  Really, if two people want to be married they should only need to go to a notary, write on a piece of paper their names and that they are married to each other, and then have it signed by a notary and two witnesses (one for each person, of that persons choosing).  And that is only for legal dispute if the union ends.   

The governments of the world are WAY too big and encroach on our lives WAY too much in my opinion.