A Philosophical Thought

[Hippobatman]

Dear fellow escapists, I wish to ask you a philosophical question; but first I'll fill you in on some theory.

About 5-600 years ago Mr. Niccoló di Bernardo dei Machiavelli wrote The Prince in which he presented his view on how to best rule a kingdom. Basicly Machiavelly states that a leader should be both feared and loved by his people, but since it is difficult to have both, you should rather emphesize fear, because the fear would prevent a potential riot amongst the people, since they would fear repercussions. If a ruler is loved by his people, they would happily obey as long as their life is good and there is no suffering, however, the people will quickly turn on their ruler if a depression would occur.

Machiavelli also thought a ruler should make an example of criminals, because if he'd execute, say, a murderer, he'd only hurt a few, but if he allowed the murderer to live, he'd hurt several more.

So, the question I'm trying to ask: Does the means, no matter how cruel, justify the outcome if it's for the greater good?

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

No, because as he also argues you can only push people for so long before they're just going to kill you. He had three golden rules: make sure they've got enough eat, make sure they've got a place to sleep, and don't sleep with their wives. If you're going to be cruel, you still can only do so for the sake of preserving those qualities.

Machiavelli also wrote that a good prince is able to see his Kingdom like a series of layers or maps. He can see the big, all encompassing picture, and he can see the very tiny minute details of his kingdom. He understands what the poor person is going through and the rich one.

And finally, most of his political manipulation techniques relied on something that no longer exists today: information control. With the internet, you can no longer maintain the privacy and positioning against enemies that he relied on. Most of his tactics, including using cruelty to control the populace, still rely on the populace being ignorant. That isn't really possible anymore.

 

[Flying-Emu]

It depends on what the outcome is. If your definition of "the greater good" is to push a little more cash into the wallets of Johnny Big Business, then a resounding NO.

It's far more practical for a leader to be loved. Generally, it's cheaper, first off. Torture and public executions are such a hassle. Also, where is there an example in history of a ruler who was hated NOT being rebelled against? (If you bring up the Romans, you're sadly mistaken. They actually, while cruel, did entertain the people with good medicine, arts, etc.)

Cruelty never justifies the means. I may be an idealist saying this, but unless it's the saving of all mankind, there's generally a better way to do something.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I generally believe in the end justifying the means, because at the end of the day if something's going to be bad you may as well end up with the better situation. But, of course, there is a limit...

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I found Machavelli's the prince refreshingly realistic compared to some books of the time, but he is a more of a desperate times calls for desperate measures kind of guy and you're not meant to use this ammoral/immortalism all the time...

...remember that he is only writing for a new prince who has seized a throne illegitimately and needs to establish their kingship...

 

[RavingPenguin]

There is a delicate balance between the 2, only those of quick wit can manipulate the people to best serve his means. Lead the people with love and caring, bring the hammer down on crime, and protect those without power. Become a leader instead of a tyrant, be a role model to the people, and they will not turn on you. Those who reward the innocent and punish the wicked will have the blessing of the people. Only a man who realizes that his power lies withe the people and their happiness has a right to lead.

 

[Malkavian]

So, the question I'm trying to ask: Does the means, no matter how cruel, justify the outcome if it's for the greater good?

No. I don't believe this.

The problem is, when you just put it like that, you wind up with a lot of examples that noone will accept.

What you seem to be getting at, is called utilitarism. Utilitarism is the belief that a moral action is to be judged by how much pleasure it brings, pleasure being good. So, the more people it brings pleasure, the more intense pleasure it brings them, and the longer it does, the better.

A very standard(but very much arguable, in terms of relevance) counter-argument to utilitarism is usually something like this: "If killing the cultural minority in a city will make the majority happy, is that not according to utilitarism the right thing to do?"
Take that argument, and look at your question.

 

[Zildjin81]

Yep, the ends justify the means.

 

[Aardvark]

If I remember, it was a satire that was taken to heart by one too many dictators, globally.

If we go to the personal level, everyone believes they have the right to survive, to live, to expand, to create, to consume, etc, etc. Good for them. If we go out to the species level, the only imperative is to ensure that enough of this generation make it through to the next generation, then it doesn't matter what happens otherwise. People can be as good or evil as they want to be, it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[DrunkenKitty]

Dear fellow escapists, I wish to ask you a philosophical question; but first I'll fill you in on some theory.

About 5-600 years ago Mr. Niccoló di Bernardo dei Machiavelli wrote The Prince in which he presented his view on how to best rule a kingdom. Basicly Machiavelly states that a leader should be both feared and loved by his people, but since it is difficult to have both, you should rather emphesize fear, because the fear would prevent a potential riot amongst the people, since they would fear repercussions. If a ruler is loved by his people, they would happily obey as long as their life is good and there is no suffering, however, the people will quickly turn on their ruler if a depression would occur.

Machiavelli also thought a ruler should make an example of criminals, because if he'd execute, say, a murderer, he'd only hurt a few, but if he allowed the murderer to live, he'd hurt several more.

So, the question I'm trying to ask: Does the means, no matter how cruel, justify the outcome if it's for the greater good?

You're applying logic to opinion and abstract concepts. Keep in mind Machiavelli never ruled anything close to a kingdom and died a miserable lonely fuck.

If you're into Machiavellian concepts, but would like something a bit more practical, read these:

The 48 Laws of Power [http://www.amazon.com/48-Laws-Power-Robert-Greene/dp/0140280197/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234835732&sr=8-1]
The Mystery Method
Be the Person You Want to Be [http://www.amazon.com/Person-You-Want-Neuro-Linguistic-Programming/dp/0761508066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234835849&sr=1-1]

 

[samsprinkle]

The ends ALWAYS justify the means, unless of course the means justify the ends, or if the ends justify the ends, or the means justify the means, or if logic justifies it all, or if one wishes to believe that the ends are justified, unless of course the means are not just, then one could only pretend to believe that something of that nature was truly just. (see, I can put on the philosipher hat too...)

 

[Scarecrow38]

I say the ends always justify the means of the ends are of greater good. The real ethical/ philosophical/ moral dilemma arises when we consider if the 'good' is actually great enough to offset the potential evil. Most times in history than do something for the 'greater good' tend to create more bad.

It's even more complicated because it's all relative. What you and me think is a 'greater good', could appear to others as evil/ not good enough to offset the 'bad' means.

It's almost like the terrorist/ freedom fighter concept. The only difference between these 2 people is whether he's on your side.

 

[jasoncyrus]

Depends on who the greater good serves...and how many innocent people you are willing to murder in cold blood.

Thats an extreme example but eventually it would boil down to that question. Kill a million to save ten million?

 

[Fenring]

I believe yes.

On another note, i just read this is class last month.

 

[Malkavian]

If I remember, it was a satire that was taken to heart by one too many dictators, globally.

Not really. Machiavelli was a serious political-philosopher. And in fact, he wasn't very popular, as other contemporary ideas were far more popular.

You're applying logic to opinion and abstract concepts. Keep in mind Machiavelli never ruled anything close to a kingdom and died a miserable lonely fuck.

If you're into Machiavellian concepts, but would like something a bit more practical, read these:

The 48 Laws of Power [http://www.amazon.com/48-Laws-Power-Robert-Greene/dp/0140280197/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234835732&sr=8-1]
The Mystery Method
Be the Person You Want to Be [http://www.amazon.com/Person-You-Want-Neuro-Linguistic-Programming/dp/0761508066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234835849&sr=1-1]

Applying logic to abstract concepts is what philosophy is, broadly speaking, about.

The Mystery Method has nothing to do with Machiavelli. I can't say for the others, as I haven't read them, but Mystery and Machiavelli have very little in common, except for being very interesting.

 

[000Ronald]

No.

Apologies for the short response, but in my mind that's all the response such a question needs or deserves.

 

[atv_chic_18]

Your question: Does the means, no matter how cruel, justify the outcome if it's for the greater good?

My answer: No, not always. It depends on the subject and the severity of the case of the subject itself. I could've summed it up with a simple no, but I felt compelled to say just a little more.

 

[santaandy]

I think if you can manage to balance the people's love for you and fear of you you've got it made. If you're a total pushover, you won't last the week. If your a total sadist, well, pretty much the same thing. Just make sure the people understand your cruelty is against bad people and for the betterment of good people and all is well. You cannot get simply get away with anything, but when you are cruel, be swift, merciless, and decisive. Don't give people a chance to doubt you/change your actions. That's how you win.

 

[Sewblon]

I agree with making an example of criminals. When people fear but don't respect their ruler they tend to plot against his life, for example, Louis the XVI was beheaded and so was Robes Pierre.