zlacker

"The ends justify the means is consequentialism."

The only reason people view that phrase as cynical is that it is often used in a context where the complete ends aren't being considered.

>>kerkes+(OP)
Only if you think you can't be wrong, other people can't be right and the issue you're discussing is so absolutely more important than any other consideration, like truth.

When I hear "consequentialism", I think in discarding absolutes and favouring frank discusion about practical measures. So exactly the opposite.

>>narag+kg
> Only if you think you can't be wrong, other people can't be right and the issue you're discussing is so absolutely more important than any other consideration, like truth.

This is an example of exactly what I mean when I say "the complete ends aren't being considered". Perhaps your ends are "I want everyone to be fed" but if part of your means to get there is lying to everyone, then part of the ends that results from that is disfranchisement and a lack of informed participation by everyone (to use your terminology: a lack of truth).

> When I hear "consequentialism", I think in discarding absolutes and favouring frank discusion about practical measures. So exactly the opposite.

I think ultimately it's pretty hard to avoid absolutes. Consequentialism at some level requires you to have some target consequence. Look at your own post: you're concerned with "truth"--that's certainly an absolute value that you're targeting. I'm sure there are situations where you'd be okay with lying, but I'd venture that's only because there's some other absolute you value more. Consequentialism doesn't avoid absolutes, it just constrains the absolutes within a framework of result-oriented actions within reality, rather than actions for their own sake.

>>kerkes+pW1
Look at your own post: you're concerned with "truth"...

I'm concerned with hypocrisy and fanaticism. I've seen what a tyranny looks like: a mandatory mindset with strong social pressure to conform, free thinking as a public sin and people becoming hypocrites, the ones not dumb enough to be fanatics.

>>narag+Ds4
Okay, I'm concerned about those things too, but I'm not sure how that relates to whether "the ends justify the means" is consequentialism.

It sounds like you want to distance consequentialism from tyranny. As a consequentialist, I can see the draw, but I think that it's vital that we admit that consequentialism, improperly applied, can be used to justify tyranny. If we pretend that can't happen, then we won't "notice the skulls"[1]--that is, we won't notice when consequentialists are supporting tyranny in our midst, because we've been arguing all along that that can't happen. It's vital that we see where consequentialism can go wrong so that we can take steps to prevent it from going wrong.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/07/yes-we-have-noticed-th...