Comments on: Ends and Means?? http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/11/28/ends-and-means/ Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:46:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: Jivha http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/11/28/ends-and-means/#comment-356 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/11/28/ends-and-means/#comment-356 1. Ravi, Mr.Pramod Mutalik's statement needs to be viewed in the context in order for it to be deemed "stupid". Since there is no "breakdown of government" and no "failure of the government to protect the rights of it's citizens" in Karnataka, Mr.Mutalik's statement is *stupid* in the present context. Boycott of foreign-made goods might have been relevant during our freedom struggle, but if someone were to advocate the same in the present scene in India, I would without doubt term it *stupid* 2. By merely calling the argument *stupid* did not make my reply un-civil. 3. Sympathy for a person is exactly what I meant by the "human element" in my post. The law has no place for "sympathy". It might treat an accused in a "sympathetic light" in some cases, but by no means can it allow the "sympathy" to overrule the law of the land itself. 1. Ravi, Mr.Pramod Mutalik’s statement needs to be viewed in the context in order for it to be deemed “stupid”.

Since there is no “breakdown of government” and no “failure of the government to protect the rights of it’s citizens” in Karnataka, Mr.Mutalik’s statement is *stupid* in the present context. Boycott of foreign-made goods might have been relevant during our freedom struggle, but if someone were to advocate the same in the present scene in India, I would without doubt term it *stupid*

2. By merely calling the argument *stupid* did not make my reply un-civil.

3. Sympathy for a person is exactly what I meant by the “human element” in my post. The law has no place for “sympathy”. It might treat an accused in a “sympathetic light” in some cases, but by no means can it allow the “sympathy” to overrule the law of the land itself.

]]> by: Yazad http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/11/28/ends-and-means/#comment-357 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/11/28/ends-and-means/#comment-357 Though I am often put off by Jivha's ranting (it is getting a bit tiresome of late), I agree with the principle that the means do not justify the end. However Ravi, in your Emergency example, the means (armed revolt against a violent opressor) is <i>justifiable on it's own</i> by invoking the principle of self defense. It is not dependent on justification from the end (freedom from dictatorship). In Jivha's example the means (killing an allegedly corrupt legislator) do not justify the end (justice, ending theft, etc). To me corruption is the same as theft / extortion. The means justifying the end here means proposing the death sentence for theft and extortion. And in this case, a sentence passed without a trial or any due process whatsoever. Ravi, you had writen on this earlier. Damn. You've taken down your blog archives for maintenance. Give us a link to your earlier views please! Though I am often put off by Jivha’s ranting (it is getting a bit tiresome of late), I agree with the principle that the means do not justify the end.

However Ravi, in your Emergency example, the means (armed revolt against a violent opressor) is justifiable on it’s own by invoking the principle of self defense. It is not dependent on justification from the end (freedom from dictatorship).

In Jivha’s example the means (killing an allegedly corrupt legislator) do not justify the end (justice, ending theft, etc). To me corruption is the same as theft / extortion. The means justifying the end here means proposing the death sentence for theft and extortion. And in this case, a sentence passed without a trial or any due process whatsoever.

Ravi, you had writen on this earlier. Damn. You’ve taken down your blog archives for maintenance. Give us a link to your earlier views please!

]]> by: Ankh http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/11/28/ends-and-means/#comment-358 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2003/11/28/ends-and-means/#comment-358 You can always argue what the breakdown of the system is when the system itself is corrupt. Would you use checks and measures set by the government themselves to justify the proper punishment. That doesn't go to say that corruption is punishable by death, but it does raise the question as to where the buck stops. Where does a vigilante movement become a civil revolt. It's a fine line. You can always argue what the breakdown of the system is when the system itself is corrupt. Would you use checks and measures set by the government themselves to justify the proper punishment. That doesn’t go to say that corruption is punishable by death, but it does raise the question as to where the buck stops. Where does a vigilante movement become a civil revolt. It’s a fine line.

]]>