Marooner's Musings

You were watching 'Boondock Saints', weren't you?

Now you will receive us.

We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry.

We do not want your tired and sick.

It is your corrupt we claim.

It is your evil that will be sought by us.

With every breath we shall hunt them down.

Each day, we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies.

Do not kill, do not $%&@, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.

These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.

There are varying degrees of evil, we urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over, into true corruption, into our domain.

For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three. And on that day, you will reap it.

And we will send you to whatever god you wish.

Actually, no. Good movie though. I'm thinking something in the theatres now, actually.

Although not on the movie train of thought, if you've read Watership Down, which is what immediately came into my head when you started your example there, it's got an interesting example:

There are a group of rabbits which live in a down and are fed by humans, but every few days one of them is caught/killed by the humans. They are all fed very well and don't have to worry about prey, but to pay for this they pay in lives (randomly chosen). They can up and go at any time, but they stay. In the same situation, what would humans do?

I hope this relates, it's late, and was the first thing that came to mind.

I'm not sure the question and example fully correspond. You're asking if the end justifies the means, but you don't seem sure that the end itself is desirable (or indeed, even what the end is). Obviously if the end isn't desirable (or known) then nor are the means to get there.

The question itself assumes that the end is desirable, but it is surely the extent to which it is desirable that determines the extent to which the means are justified, whatever those means may be. And an additional, but no less important consideration, is the extent to which the means will affect the end -- perhaps the end is ultimately unachievable through the considered means due to the way they alter the world and its actors (although again perhaps the question itself precludes this possibility).

Ultimately I am reminded of Trotsky's famous quote: "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."