• UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To be fair killing nazis is pretty cool. We made some movies about it.

    It is neat you are a fan of doing things where the ends do not justify the means. How do bathing moral decay like that feel?

    • LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you never heard the phrase “the ends justify the means” before? It’s a pretty common phrase.

      It means that any action, no matter how unethical or morally reprehensible, is acceptable as long as it is done to accomplish a goal that is deemed good.

      This is the tankie attitude.

      To reject this means that there are limitations on what actions are acceptable in pursuit of a goal. That there are some actions that are too repugnant to be justified.

      • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s correct. I think in the real world that doesn’t come up. What is the hypothetical? would you murder an innocent little girl to save your child. That isn’t a gotcha. That wouldn’t work. Even if it did work, the ends of that is that everyone has to wory about their children being scrapped for spare parts. That logic works under cpaitlaism. That situation infact happens today for capitlaism. There just aren’t situations where if you accurately assess the ends it justifies terrible means. Under capitlaism we do terrible means for terrible ends. We are so used to thinking of that that it us hard to think of alternatives, but your failure of imagination doesn’t make you morally right.

      • LinkedinLenin [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s just thought-terminating. There’s no universal truth that ends do or do not justify means.

        Is locking up a sex offender to prevent further victimization justifiable? Is taking bread from a store to feed a starving person justifiable? Is banning false advertisement justifiable? Is requiring licensure for medical practice justifiable? Those actions are all means that directly violate some conception of liberal human rights.

        Additionally, there’s often not a clear delineation, in the real world, between means and ends. The real world is made up of complex networks of powers and interests competing against each other, regardless of what can or cannot be justified. We believe in advancing working class power, interests, and rights, which by definition necessitates undermining the power, interests, and rights of the ruling class and its enforcers/enablers. Within that framework we accept and perform criticisms of the methods used to progress those goals, but only inasmuch as those critiques can help to refine strategy and inform future liberatory movements. Otherwise it’s either carrying water for US interests or squabbling about the moral standing of dead people.

        • LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think you said anything meaningfully different from what I already said.

          You do not consider the abhorrent unethical nature of certain actions as being a valid argument against taking those actions in the pursuit of establishing a communist society. The only criticism you’ll entertain is that certain actions may be ineffective or inefficient at accomplishing that goal.