edify
Lt. Jr. Grade
Posts: 150
|
Post by edify on Jan 31, 2010 15:41:08 GMT -6
Here is the example: You are a commander of a batallion in WWII. Your forces has reached the german village. Suddenly a heavy fire was laid down upon your soldiers from the village by the nazi batallion hiding there. You also have some heavy cannons with you, but you know for sure that the village is full of innocent civilians. What will be your choice as a commander, 1)(suicide attack) to attack without the artillery support knowing you'll loose most of your soldiers who has entrusted their lives to you, or 2)(war crime) to open artillery fire on the village killing civilians along with nazi, or 3)(being coward) withdrow from combat taking some not critical loses but knowing that when nazi will fortify the attack by some other batallion commander will cost even more lifes? My moral code is simple and strict- as a commander I am responsible for my troops, and I value their lifes much more then the lifes of enemy civilians. Hypocrit and "genuinely good man wannabe" will blame me for that choice and for killing innocent civilians. Self-righteous will even demand me to be judged. And the hypocracy is in the fact that they would do the same, unless they realy have no honor. So your hippy "genuinely good people" simply never were in such a situations, and they exict only on expence of those "evil militarists" who do have to make the evil choices every day. I know it and I never blame the soldiers. I do not even condemn the atom bombs on Japan because it did save a lot of american lifes, and it has delayed the war between USA and USSR to the point where war was not possible at all. But the hippies of USA successfully avoided the army, and they blame the US soldiers for Vietnam bloodshed. Isn't that a hypocracy? Stark, your problem is you're a shallow, superficial person. You don't see anything below the surface. A suicide attack is not a hypocritcal action by a commander, at least not in the United States where we have freedom to choose. Every soldier on that battlefield chooses to be there, and would willingly give their lives to defend their country. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there. It's not hypocrisy or a lack of value for your soldier's lives. Each one of them has the freedom to decide whether they want to live, or to give their lives to defend their country. Additionally, there's nothing hypocritcal about the hippies. They were saying what they believe. They're American citizens, and newsflash, Americans are free to choose how to live their lives and they're free to choose to believe how they want to believe. If the hippies do no believe in war, that is their right. If a hippie signed up for the army and still went around saying how much they hated war, that would be hypocritical. There's nothing hypocritical in saying the end does not justify the means. That's the reason people don't steal, or murder, or commit crimes. Because the end doesn't justify the means. If you do these things, then you are creating hardship for others. If you ask me, people who believe the end justifies the means are the real hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 1, 2010 2:09:27 GMT -6
First of all the soldier's duty is to defend his country, not to sacrafice his life bacause of his commanders fancy. Can anyone really consider himself as a good man and not value his soldier's lifes at the same time? What will soldiers think of such a commander? Do you think they will still consider you as a kind man, sending them to slaughter? Second- in WWII soldiers were not asked at all if they want to serve in army. And even now, you can sign a contract having in mind defending the USA, but you cannot refuse if you are sent to Iraq or Afgan. And when they are in battle they cannot disobey the order of supiriour officer, and they do entrust their lifes to commanders and can only hope and belive they will do everything to make the victory with a little blood.
About hypocracy you have a really pereverted point of view. Man who hates the war but sign up for the army when his country need him deserves nothing but respect. And hippie who hates war, avoids the army but is still living under armie's defence is a real hypocrit. Why wouldn't he go to Jamaica or some other third world country where no US soldier will protect him? Such a man is eating the fruits of America and chopping the tree at the same time. He is not better then some stupid PETA member eating steak.
And I really do not get it, what your false statement that "people don't steal, or murder, or commit crimes" has to do with hypocracy? Oh, I get it. You mean that people DO steal murder and commit crimes while PRETENDING that they are not? Okey. But that still nothing to do with "end's justify the means" topic. But what is hypocritical about "end's justify the means"? Can you prove that I only say it while I won't use the motto in real situation? And I can give you a thousand of examples where "end doesn't justify..." fans WILL HAVE to break their own hypocritical moral code. The WWII example is only one of the many.
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 1, 2010 2:13:12 GMT -6
BTW, edify, are you sure your choice will be to send your soldiers, who trust you, who depend on you into a certain death only to make you feel better about yourself? If it's so then you are the evil one in our arguement...
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 1, 2010 8:51:08 GMT -6
Well, the ends DO justify the means. It is the way the world is functioning. Nope. Sometimes you are forced by circumstances to chose the lesser of two evils, but evil for its own sake is never an option, among people with any pretense at a moral compass. The only people who believe the ends justify the means are self-righteous people with very little moral conviction.
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 1, 2010 9:37:21 GMT -6
But of course evil for it's own sake is never an option. Atoz, you've just got all wrong. The "Ends justify the means" expression means exactly that sometimes you have to go do a lesser evil in order to achieve a greater good. For example police agents undercover have to commit a minor crimes in order to gain a trust of mafia big bosses and to bust them all in the end. And those crimes do not make this police officer a bad man. He's a hero! As you see I am justifying the "means" of such a police officers knowing his "ends". Am I a "self-righteous with very little moral conviction"? Or the people who will condemn his actions are?
Here is the example of clear hypocracy of Federation. Section 31 have attempted genocide of all the changeling. Federation has condemned the deed, but did nothing against section 31. Even more! Federation has forbid dr.Bashyr from curing the Shifters!!
May be that is why Federation has won in the end ) The Federates were just more evil then their competitors )
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Feb 1, 2010 15:02:37 GMT -6
I loved deep Space Nine, but at the end of it all Sisko a Star Fleet Captain wouldn't leave Star Fleet and a pregnant wife to go off with some mysteries godlike beings that we really don't know too much about.
|
|
Dax123
Commander
[ss:NX-01]
Posts: 1,207
|
Post by Dax123 on Feb 1, 2010 15:15:17 GMT -6
Yes, I also don't see how Sisko can just walk away from his son and even more, his pregnant wife!! He obviously doesn't care to much about his children. I do NOT think he should of gone with the prophets, he did not know anything about them.
|
|
PIKE
Cadet
One beep for YES[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 35
|
Post by PIKE on Feb 1, 2010 16:06:51 GMT -6
That was my dissapointment with Deep Space Nine and Sisko, He had great moments and I liked him in the series but for that final act he gets my vote as worst captain.
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 2, 2010 1:10:55 GMT -6
Of course he would go with the prophets. He was no different from Gal Dukat or Kai Winn. He always counted himself as a divine, being sent by higher force to rule the lowly people. "Is that clear?!!" In army sergant plays the role of such a dickhead for only first 4 month, after that he becomes normal with his soldiers. But Sisko takes that commanding role seriously! "DID! I! MAKE! MYSELF! CLEAR?!" Compare it for example with Archer's democratic and friendly behavour. Or Kirk's professionalism.
BTW, the only thing he does during the battle is "All power to a front shields" "Attack pattern delta" "Fire". He could be replaced by talking toy as well. He is the only one complete useless member of the crew. Compare him with Eddington for example. I'd really like to fight as the "Maki" under his leadership. The guy was **** clever and with good sence of humor. And he was also much more honorable then Sisko, while being much less self-righteous in the same time.
|
|
shakfar
Lt. Commander
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 582
|
Post by shakfar on Feb 2, 2010 6:37:04 GMT -6
the worst captain in the series (tae a deep breath and dont wander if you have gon insane or try to kill me) Warf!. Remember in the movie first contact when he was captaning a little ship and picard had to save him? (i dont like the thaught of warf being dead so he shouldent be allowed to be a captain). bad juju
|
|
JADIS
Lieutenant
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 372
|
Post by JADIS on Feb 2, 2010 21:51:39 GMT -6
My boyfriend thinks Picard is the most awful captain because he allowed Captain Kirk to be killed in Generations...he thinks it could of been avoided if Picard was smart enough to choose a better time to go back to; such as the time when the villain was on board the Enterprise...
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 4, 2010 8:47:59 GMT -6
But of course evil for it's own sake is never an option. Atoz, you've just got all wrong. If I did, maybe it's because you are not explaining yourself very well. You jump from topic to topic so much, it's hard to tell what you're trying to say.No, it doesn't. Chosing the lesser of two evils means that, given a bad situation, you make the choice that results in the least amount of harm for everyone concerned, not just for yourself. It often requires self-sacrifice. As Plato said, it is better to suffer a certain amount of injustice yourself than to unnecessarily inflict it upon others. By contrast, when Landru decided that mind control was the only way to make the people of Beta III happy, he wasn't just chosing the lesser of two evils. He was actively inflicting harm upon those people in the mistaken belief that they would be better off.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 4, 2010 8:50:29 GMT -6
Yes, I also don't see how Sisko can just walk away from his son and even more, his pregnant wife!! He obviously doesn't care to much about his children. I do NOT think he should of gone with the prophets, he did not know anything about them. I can't say much about Sisko because I'm not that familiar with DS9. But if you really believed that the Prophets were supreme beings, wouldn't you trust that they had your best interests at heart? Religious friends of mine tell me that the whole point to Faith is putting aside what you think makes sense in favor of what God expects of you. (Maybe that's why I'm not good at faith myself.)
|
|
|
Post by stark on Feb 4, 2010 12:46:54 GMT -6
Idioms & Phrases end justifies the means, the
A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. For example, "The officer tricked her into admitting her guilt" the end sometimes justifies the means. This proverbial (and controversial) observation dates from ancient times, but in English it was first recorded only in 1583.
Quick Quiz: The government says that "the end justifies the means," so killing one thousand people to save one million people will a.be acceptable b.be unacceptable c.have no meaning
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 6, 2010 11:50:25 GMT -6
The government would believe it to be acceptable.
Of course, it depends on the circumstances. If you have no way of saving the thousand without risking the million...?
|
|