Does the end justify the means?

Does the End Justify the Means

  • Yes and explain why

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • No and explain why

    Votes: 3 75.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
That question has a traditionally bias answer of No! So I would like to rephrase the question as "Do the results justify the methods"? My answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, but all the results involved have to be considered and all the methods have to be considered,

For example, lying is usually considered to be wrong. However, suppose that a madman breaks into my house an holds me at gunpoint. My daughter is hiding somewhere in the house and I know where. The madman sees a picture of me and my daughter and asks where she is at. I lie to him and tell him that she is at Grandma's house. The result is that the madman does not find my daughter. Does that result justify my lie? I am confident that it does. Is lying usually considered wrong? Yes!


The question, does the ends justify the means (Do the results justify the methods) has to be answered case by case. In some cases the answer is yes and in other cases the answer is no.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
As pointed out, the question was asked in a survey course in world history, and most would understand the Ends and Means are those designed by Kings, Tsars, Generals, etc., and within the scope of this thread, the Press Conference with the Sec. of Homeland Security today.

Is the Means, taking baby's and young children from the arms of their parents, justified. And, what are Ends, i.e. not only the agenda of Trump, Sessions and Nielsen, but the impact on these innocent children and on the perception of the people all over the world of America.
 
As pointed out, the question was asked in a survey course in world history, and most would understand the Ends and Means are those designed by Kings, Tsars, Generals, etc., and within the scope of this thread, the Press Conference with the Sec. of Homeland Security today.

Is the Means, taking baby's and young children from the arms of their parents, justified. And, what are Ends, i.e. not only the agenda of Trump, Sessions and Nielsen, but the impact on these innocent children and on the perception of the people all over the world of America.
In this case, the failed, unwarranted Trump policy of separating children from their families hasn’t worked, given the fact there has been no decrease in the number of immigrants coming to the United States.

The policy was supposed to be a ‘deterrent’ to immigration, and it has had no such effect.
 
As pointed out, the question was asked in a survey course in world history, and most would understand the Ends and Means are those designed by Kings, Tsars, Generals, etc., and within the scope of this thread, the Press Conference with the Sec. of Homeland Security today.

Is the Means, taking baby's and young children from the arms of their parents, justified. And, what are Ends, i.e. not only the agenda of Trump, Sessions and Nielsen, but the impact on these innocent children and on the perception of the people all over the world of America.
In this case, the failed, unwarranted Trump policy of separating children from their families hasn’t worked, given the fact there has been no decrease in the number of immigrants coming to the United States.

The policy was supposed to be a ‘deterrent’ to immigration, and it has had no such effect.

Using children in this matter is abusive and immoral; for the fiscal conservative, a huge cost of taxpayer money with no cost-benefit.
 
As pointed out, the question was asked in a survey course in world history, and most would understand the Ends and Means are those designed by Kings, Tsars, Generals, etc., and within the scope of this thread, the Press Conference with the Sec. of Homeland Security today.

Is the Means, taking baby's and young children from the arms of their parents, justified. And, what are Ends, i.e. not only the agenda of Trump, Sessions and Nielsen, but the impact on these innocent children and on the perception of the people all over the world of America.
In this case, the failed, unwarranted Trump policy of separating children from their families hasn’t worked, given the fact there has been no decrease in the number of immigrants coming to the United States.

The policy was supposed to be a ‘deterrent’ to immigration, and it has had no such effect.

Using children in this matter is abusive and immoral; for the fiscal conservative, a huge cost of taxpayer money with no cost-benefit.

What is your solution to morally and inexpensively cut off the flow of illegal aliens and their children across our border?
 
As pointed out, the question was asked in a survey course in world history, and most would understand the Ends and Means are those designed by Kings, Tsars, Generals, etc., and within the scope of this thread, the Press Conference with the Sec. of Homeland Security today.

Is the Means, taking baby's and young children from the arms of their parents, justified. And, what are Ends, i.e. not only the agenda of Trump, Sessions and Nielsen, but the impact on these innocent children and on the perception of the people all over the world of America.
In this case, the failed, unwarranted Trump policy of separating children from their families hasn’t worked, given the fact there has been no decrease in the number of immigrants coming to the United States.

The policy was supposed to be a ‘deterrent’ to immigration, and it has had no such effect.

The policy was supposed to be a ‘deterrent’ to immigration, and it has had no such effect.

Too soon to make that claim.
 
The question is based on the morality of the Means. If the means are immoral, the end cannot be justified


How delightfully precious Wry

So you've predicated your entire shtick on that delicate balance betwixt what you consider moral, and what you'd consider moral turpitude.

Right now, as we chat there are multiple factions that'll appear and post that they're quite sure just what that benchmark is, how it should operate, etc etc

Few of them can look in the mirror, and realize they make scrooge look like a bleeding heart libtard by proxy of simply being a citizen of the USA

Most can't stand the truth about us, as a people, a race, a nation , instead they'll hide behind the flag or blame someone or something else

will you?

~S~
 
White southerners want to deny blacks the right to vote, the ends, so they set about killing anyone in the south helping blacks get the right to vote, the means.

Nazis want to remove all Jews from Europe which they control, the ends, they don't have any more countries they can ship them to so they decide to gas them to death and burn their bodies, the means.

Richard Nixon is afraid the Democrats will win the 1972 election and desperately wants to stop them, the ends, he sends his operatives to break into the Democrat National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel to steal information on their candidates and operations, the means.

Lying Trump is afraid of Hillary Clinton and knows she'll likely win the election if he doesn't cheat, the ends, so he colludes with the Russians to produce false ads to influence voters in his favor, the means.

Little Lying Donald sees Mueller getting closer and closer to locking him up which he desperately wants to avoid, the ends, so he concocts lie after lie about the investigation to see if anything sticks while he also tells all the cronies and criminals that have worked for him that he will pardon them so not to worry, the means.
 
As pointed out, the question was asked in a survey course in world history, and most would understand the Ends and Means are those designed by Kings, Tsars, Generals, etc., and within the scope of this thread, the Press Conference with the Sec. of Homeland Security today.

Is the Means, taking baby's and young children from the arms of their parents, justified. And, what are Ends, i.e. not only the agenda of Trump, Sessions and Nielsen, but the impact on these innocent children and on the perception of the people all over the world of America.

In this case, the failed, unwarranted Trump policy of separating children from their families hasn’t worked, given the fact there has been no decrease in the number of immigrants coming to the United States.

The policy was supposed to be a ‘deterrent’ to immigration, and it has had no such effect.

Using children in this matter is abusive and immoral; for the fiscal conservative, a huge cost of taxpayer money with no cost-benefit.

What is your solution to morally and inexpensively cut off the flow of illegal aliens and their children across our border?

I have no magic solution to mitigate what Trump, Sessions and Nielsen have done, since Trump has alienated Mexico, slandered the Mexican and Central American governments and people, other than to vote my conscience and hope other people have one. Clearly you don't.

We need an effective and fully funded Dept of State, to fix diplomatically what Trump has destroyed. A Congress to function within the traditional values of our nation, and not those of a banana republic or worse, and a W. H. functioning with no drama and no chaos, but with a consistent goal of establishing win-win solutions.
 
Does the end justify the means?


See Gruber / Obama care


See Harry Reid lying about Romney's tax returns

 
As pointed out, the question was asked in a survey course in world history, and most would understand the Ends and Means are those designed by Kings, Tsars, Generals, etc., and within the scope of this thread, the Press Conference with the Sec. of Homeland Security today.

Is the Means, taking baby's and young children from the arms of their parents, justified. And, what are Ends, i.e. not only the agenda of Trump, Sessions and Nielsen, but the impact on these innocent children and on the perception of the people all over the world of America.

In this case, the failed, unwarranted Trump policy of separating children from their families hasn’t worked, given the fact there has been no decrease in the number of immigrants coming to the United States.

The policy was supposed to be a ‘deterrent’ to immigration, and it has had no such effect.

Using children in this matter is abusive and immoral; for the fiscal conservative, a huge cost of taxpayer money with no cost-benefit.

What is your solution to morally and inexpensively cut off the flow of illegal aliens and their children across our border?

I have no magic solution to mitigate what Trump, Sessions and Nielsen have done, since Trump has alienated Mexico, slandered the Mexican and Central American governments and people, other than to vote my conscience and hope other people have one. Clearly you don't.

We need an effective and fully funded Dept of State, to fix diplomatically what Trump has destroyed. A Congress to function within the traditional values of our nation, and not those of a banana republic or worse, and a W. H. functioning with no drama and no chaos, but with a consistent goal of establishing win-win solutions.

I didn't ask you to mitigate anything Trump has done. Or for a diplomatic solution to anything.
What is your solution to morally and inexpensively cut off the flow of illegal aliens and their children across our border?
Or is your solution to let the flow continue, unimpeded?
 
As pointed out, the question was asked in a survey course in world history, and most would understand the Ends and Means are those designed by Kings, Tsars, Generals, etc., and within the scope of this thread, the Press Conference with the Sec. of Homeland Security today.

Is the Means, taking baby's and young children from the arms of their parents, justified. And, what are Ends, i.e. not only the agenda of Trump, Sessions and Nielsen, but the impact on these innocent children and on the perception of the people all over the world of America.

Yes.....because this is what we do with Americans who commit crimes..... and in this case, you are lying because you have failed to give the details of the situation...

Here is the actual truth....

Separating Kids at Border: The Truth | National Review

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top