should immigrant rights be the same as citizens?

I'm in a debate class and right now we are beginning Lincoln-Douglas debates. This type of debate does not rely on evidence but rather on morals. My topic is "The ends justify the means"

I have to put together a case for the statement and another that is opposing it. I have plenty of examples of why the end justifies the means and am looking for some philosophical reasons why this is true and some examples against the resolution. We all have different opinions on what the definition of end, means, and justify is so here are the ones I'm working with:

End - an outcome worked toward
Means - something useful or helpful to a desired end
Justify (pro)- to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable
Justify - (con)to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done

Re: The end justifies the means

J,
You should read some David Drake military Science Fiction stuff. It tends to reduce moal arguments to simple black and white issues.

Perhaps I have been living with the Army too long. Or the deaths of other contractors has gotten on my nerves.

As for the end justifying the means consider this thought.

"The winners write the history books"
Who was right or wrong is no longer important.

or

"We bury the guys in second place"

Wishful thinking dosen't work in this world of human discorse. Please don't fall into that mental trap.

Pick up a copy of "Enders Game" by Orsin Scott Card. Perhaps that will supply the focus.

Jack Crow in Iraq

Re: The end justifies the means

Seems relative, to me. I mean if you take into account what Jack Crow says, simple survival is an end, and to the individual it can be justification in, and of itself of "any means neccessary". I guess in the natural world there is no need for justification. Only in moral construct is there the need for justification. If you view morality in terms of it being the product of intellectual thought, philosophy or religious doctrine and stigma within a given culture that has no true (or natural) consequence, other than those held to it by the majority or authority of that culture or the personal fear of divine punishment, then anything can be justified and I believe, to a certain extent, is, relative to the personal, or even cultural, importance of the ends.

Tad

Re: The end justifies the means

I haven't thought of turning the argument into one of survival, and it should be better with it. Besides when the costs outweigh the benefits what are some other reasons that the end doesn't justify the means?

Re: The end justifies the means, NOT!

I've a few minutes so I'll try to give my thoughts on the subject.Ethics and morality are worthy of study,thought and debate.The thesis: End justifies the means is simplistic because it's not in context.Certain objectives may be noble or not.
People defending this thesis are typically just trying to rationalize their own illegal,immoral or the unethical behavior.
If the goal is win an election,good ethics should be followed.If you want to have a million bucks can you defend kidnapping and murder?If a suspect knows who did something should he be tortured?If a kid fails math should he be beaten daily until the grades improve?Each situation needs to be evaluated individually and with care.There is no "one size fits all situations. You should'nt burn down the house to get rid of the cockroaches.

Re: The end justifies the means, NOT!

To save myself, should I allow, or kill 100 others? To stop a murderer, should the police destroy an entire apartment building?
No real serious thought to this, just the first things that popped into my head.

Re: The end justifies the means, NOT!

If both the ends and means are moral, then yes. If either are immoral then, for me only, I'd say no. Adding to the query the fact that morality is often a grey area and opinions differ on what's moral, does it depend on circumstances and the individual pondering what's right?

Re: The end justifies the means, NOT!

One doesn't normally apply that phrase unless you have already decided that the end does not justify the means used to get there.

While the outcome that you achieve may be the reason for the things you do, it cannot be an excuse. Isn't there something about paving the road to he||? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

On the topic of debating in general there is an excellent page here on logical fallicies always important to understand the argument being used against you and be able to label it for what it is. Pointing out the other guys mistake can be as important as making your own point /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif And interestingly enough Bill Whittle writes some HERE this past week about his own experience in debate competitions and the techniques that he sometimes resorted to as well as some reflection on the whole experience in general.

Re: The end justifies the means, NOT!

If the "value" of the result(end) is greater than the "cost" (means) of obtaining the result, one could argue that the endeavor has value and should be undertaken. I suspect the problems encountered typically in such a justification are based on the valuation of the end versus the valuation of the means. Additionally, one might argue that certain "costs" are to be avoided regardless of any potential gain. For instance "no gain justifies the cost of human life". Of course the rub is if the gain is also measured in human lives saved.

Good luck and as is likely obvious, I don't know the first thing about debate. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Re: The end justifies the means, NOT!

It has been said that it is never right to do wrong to do right.

Jerry

Re: The end justifies the means

While I rarely quote Nietzsche, it is true that even the blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while:

[ QUOTE ]
"...Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche,
Beyond Good and Evil

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The end justifies the means

Here's a thought to work in...

Even if the end does justify the means...you'd want to be clear on what the "end" was.

It was quite popular to believe in the "domino" theory during the Vietnam war. A common phrase was "I'd rather fight THEM in Vietnam than on the beaches of San Diego".

So...we fought a long, protracted war that caused a lot of human suffering. Many people used "any means" because we thought the "end" would justify it.

In the "end", we left Vietnam. The non-communist gov't fell. But the "domino theory" (that "end" we wanted to avoid that justified the means)...was wrong. Vietnam fell, but we never had to fight THEM on the beaches of San Diego.

In the end, we had been mis-lead about the "end". The war for the Vietnamese turned out to be more about a nation struggling to throw out the last vestiges of colonialism and restore control to the native peoples; a struggle for nationalism and self-determination. The two great superpowers simply grabbed onto that struggle to turn it to their own "ends".

More recently, we were "led" to believe that we had to strike a country (Iraq) pre-emptively so that the next terrorist attack wouldn't be a "mushroom cloud" (quote from Bush speech). VP Cheney stated on national TV (Meet the press) that Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons".

The "means" was a pre-emptive strike based on "facts".

Colin Powell's address to the UN stated: "What you will see is an accumulation of facts..." and later: "Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries."

The U.S. had been attacked "pre-emptively" by the Japanese in WWII and we reviled them for it. In our time, pre-emptive attack based on intelligence that was certain was presented to us that the "ends" justified the means.

So...however you conclude your debate on "the ends justifies the means"... be sure to include the factor of being "sure" about what the "ends" are.

BTW...just to set the record straight, Iraq used no such "weapons of mass destruction" to defend itself from our military, even in the face of almost certain defeat...and, no such weapons have been found after a year of intensive searching. So...if they had them, wouldn't an unprincipled b@stard like Saddam have used them to defend himself? And, if not then...when? We've been told that Iraq violated agreements for 12 years because they refused to destroy all of their WMD. But Iraq kept insisting they had no WMD...and now we have been unable to find them after completely occupying their country for over a year.

Re: The end justifies the means

CAVEAT: The End Justifies the Means example I'm about to give may sound political but that is not my intent. This is the only example I could think of -- and I'm not a very imaginative person. Forgive me.

This is a followup to my post about creating a monster.

MY PREMISE:

A free society is engaged in a struggle with terrorists who would diminish their freedom, create less openness and more fear in their society.

The forces of this society have captured a terrorist. He is a big fish. His identity is beyond question. He has been caught with 'the goods'. There is a preponderance of hard evidence against him -- enough for his execution.

His captors have determined that he has vital information that could stop an attack and save the lives of many of their countrymen.

Believing that the end justifies the means, servants of the free society torture him to obtain the information. The information is successfully extracted. The information is used and, as forseen, the lives of many countrymen are saved.

END OF MY PREMISE

Many would say that the end, in this case, justifies the means. I would argue that the truth is not as tidy as that.

For one thing, the man that did the torturing was a different man after he was done than he was when he began. While he still represents a free society, he is not the same. His experiences of that day will color his thought processes and judgement from that day forward whether he realizes it or not. It is safe to say that it probably will not be a change for the better. This type of behaviour will also become easier to rationalize with each successive incident.

The Federal institution that employs him will have changed also -- in the same ways and for the same reasons.

This effects of this behavior will 'trickle down' and ultimately have the same effect on the 'free' society at large. It has to. It is only a question of degree.

The premise I set up accepts on the surface that the end justifies the means, but is that what really happened in the long (or even not so long) run?

While the example is only one incident, things like this rarely only happen once. In defending against barbarism the defenders became barbaric. In defending against terror the defenders (in this example) have taken the first small steps to institutionalize terror within thier own sphere of influence.

They have fought the monster and become a monster.

In this case the end as postulated by the captors did not include the long term effects that the decision would have on a free society.

I want to stress that the contents of this post are not based on any actual incidents, but are expressed as an example only. I apologize again for only being able to illustrate this in a context that looks very political. I hope that you can see beyond that.

Re: The end justifies the means

I'll state it again. It's relative. It's subjective. All of those posting here concerning moral righteousness may have never dealt in what they speak of. Many, many individuals have done what is generally viewed as morally reprehensible, sometimes in defense of just cause.

Justification is something people often do to live with that which they are not proud of, but must be done. I reserve no judgement. Combat often loses it's context to those who engage in it. It becomes simple survival and protection of immediate relations. But I'm not about to tread on ground I haven't myself, crossed. In your mind don't forget that humans are animals too and while we may aspire to be more we are still bound by nature. When your perceptions of civilization are a world away nature (and human nature) is sometimes all you have to answer to, and it isn't fair and can be brutal.

My great Uncle was a Bronze Star recipient during the Battle of the Bulge, I have never met a kinder, gentler, more generous human being. God only knows what that man carried around with him, because he never spoke about it (he's since passed on). The souvenirs he brought back from the War evidenced that he saw more than his fair share of horror. But society was grateful in as much as they could understand of what he'd, and other veterans, had done in the name of European liberty. Did the ends justify the means? Seems pretty subjective to me.

I think it is right to say that it can only be judged in retrospect anyhow. If you don't have complete data you cannot render an accurate decision. Now Society tries to preempt the conclusion of everything with judgement, it is the curse of our information flow. I laugh at the guys at work when they try to ask what I think of actions that are not yet completed and the reasons given and say "If I were a rice farmer in Vietnam the only thing I'd be thinking about is which of my dogs I was having for dinner tonight"

I think I hate John Kerry and Socialistic idealism (I am an individualist, the basis of democracy) more than I hate our current foreign policy so I'll vote for Bush again. Only time will tell if my ends (the next president) justifies my means (not voting for Kerry).

Tad

Re: The end justifies the means

[ QUOTE ]
tsg68:
I'll state it again. It's relative. It's subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it's relative. Of course it's subjective. It's philosophy.

[ QUOTE ]
tsg68:
In your mind don't forget that humans are animals too and while we may aspire to be more we are still bound by nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but it has nothing to do with the subject. While we are animals, we are the only animals that 'do' philosophy -- and that pretty much rules all other animals out, since the original poster mentioned explicitly that he was looking for "philosophical reasons" for the stated positions.

Morals are a huge component of philosophy. By definition, in a world of absolute moral relativisim, there can be no morals or philosophy -- only the flux of primal urges. It would be kind of like the animal world you mentioned -- only without people.

Re: The end justifies the means

I find that morality is just as relative as any thing else and philosophy usually sucks at subverting natural tendency when moralistic view is at a low. Morality is usually only in any great evidence when there is adequate security and resource to support life. Challenge that security and resource and morality suddenly becomes a luxury. It's human nature and part of the reason it is tough to judge whether the end justifies the means in extreme cases because once you have the stability to reflect on deeds done you have removed the context in which they were deemed neccessary. It is easy to think you can pass judgement from relative safety and after crisis but if you can contextualize events accurately you can get the clearer picture. The problem is that someone who wasn't there and has no experience in the environment under which decisions were made, may not be able to follow that construct and therefore unfit to pass judgement. My wife has the saying "It's easy to save the world from the back seat of a limosine" meaning it's easy to say you have the solutions to as many problems from a place of comfort. Unfortunately people in power like to retrospectively place events in a context that suits their personal and party agenda rather than basing things in the context by which they were born.

As for people being changed by events like your example. Of course they are, but it is up to the individual to either put past deeds behind him and carry on or to dwell upon them and let them influence future actions. Thus the example of my Great Uncle a great man who was called upon to inflict harm and death upon others in the name of liberty and was able to move on in peace and with kindness towards others. It seems forgotten that we walk among folks like this every day and may not even know it. I think this theory that horrible or tragic events set president that continues is proposterous. Man is able to work through anything, especially if he has not become overly dependent on structure and has his own moral compass that rights itself beyond tragedy. While one may feel they can sit in judgement of men like this, It feels more right that they could pass better judgement on us.

I hope that makes my point a bit more crystalized.

Tad

Re: The end justifies the means

[ QUOTE ]
tsg68 said:
As for people being changed by events like your example. Of course they are, but it is up to the individual to either put past deeds behind him and carry on or to dwell upon them and let them influence future actions. Thus the example of my Great Uncle a great man who was called upon to inflict harm and death upon others in the name of liberty and was able to move on in peace and with kindness towards others.

[/ QUOTE ]

In either example, your great uncle or the torturer, they are both changed by what they have gone through. However, that change in itself leads those people to being influenced. One cannot just put it behing them and move on after events with that magnitude of tragedy.

Re: The end justifies the means

I regret to be writing this and informing you that my topic for debate has changed. Last Wednesday my teacher pulled the topics out of a hat and I received "The end justifies the means" We went to the library to research the topics some the next day (last Thursday). Today we went over our topics again and it somehow changed officially to "The Immigrants to the United States have the same rights as US citizens.

If you would like to continue to post your thoughts on this thread, by all means carry on as I will be doing the same.

Re: The end justifies the means

The definition of immigrants and rights would be important for some arguments. Are the immigrants legal or illegal? Are the rights constitutionial, natural, or de facto -- granted by judicial fiat?

For example, it could be said that because of our relentless progression towards a 'surveilance society', illegal immigrants will have more privacy than legal immigrants or US citizens.

As far back as 1888, US judge Thomas Cooley defined privacy as "the right to be left alone."

Depending on the working definitions, an argument could be made that the answer to the resolution is NO. Because of their anonymity the illegal immigrants have more privacy rights than US citizens. The legal immigrants also have more privacy because they have not had exposure to 'the system' as long as the US citizens have.

Different argument, same result:
It could be argued that legal immigrants have more rights to grants, business loans, scholarships and many jobs than US citizens because of affirmative action policies. This has nothing to do with their immigrant status. Legal immigrants are more likely to be minorities. While the legal standing of these policies may be in question, that does not negate the effects of these policies, which do tend to grant more rights to the legal immigrant demographic than to US citizens. As far as the resolution goes: NO. In this regard they have more rights than US citizens.

Different argument, same result:
It could be argued that many immigrants have an inhanced right of both free speech and religious freedom. Again, this has nothing to do with their immigrant status. It is because many of their religions are represented differently in the media and the courts and even school textbooks when compared to statistically more mainstream religions which US citizens are more likely to subscribe to. As far as the resolution goes: NO. In this regard they have more rights than US citizens.

Don't infer too much about me from these points. In any debate class I'm sure that the prof would tell you that a good debator should be able to debate either side of the resolution. I just think that these might be interesting arguments to ZAP an opponent with...or perhaps debate both sides of the resolution from essentially the same side.

Re: Immigrants (was \'end justifies means\')

[ QUOTE ]
JOshooter:
Today we went over our topics again and it somehow changed officially to "The Immigrants to the United States have the same rights as US citizens.


[/ QUOTE ]

After sleeping on it a few more things emerge. This resolution is either very poorly crafted or it's a trick question. The word same is the give away. I didn't even think to mention it's definition because it's use is usually pretty ridgid. It's like the word unique. Something cannot be more unique or less unique. Something is either unique -- or it is not. So it is with same. However incrementally similar 9.999999999999 is to 10, it is not the same as 10.

The yes argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. They are hopelessly semantically challenged by the proposition. They can site a billion examples showing that the two are similar. That does not address the resolution.

The no camp must only provide one tangible exception, however incremental or insignificant, to win.

A resolution about more or less rights would at least provide some 'wiggle-room'.

The only other factor is the moderator(s) or judge(s). They may have a political axe to grind -- or just not like being called incompetent, so what ever you do, be careful.

EDIT: changed subject line