Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Um. I evaluate the possible justifications for an action and determine if there is enough justification. The same way everyone else arrives at their conclusions.
I don't believe the ends always justify the means. I'm really not getting how you consider the two positions similar. I'm saying that if, for instance, a politician wanted to ban the death penalty because Zorkon the Space God decreed it be removed, I would still support such a ban because I think there is good reason to ban the death penalty. The politician's motivation makes little difference, if any at all.
|
I think you are right, up to a point... The motivation will also give you clues to help predict the person's future actions. To keep using your humorous hypothetical situation, if Kerry (only using him because he isn't the incumbent) said Zorkon wanted him to end the death penalty I'd be happy, but I'd also wonder what Zorkon would want him to do next. Maybe Kerry would get elected and then Zorkon would tell him to subsidize heroin for school kids that can't afford it. On the other hand, if Kerry said he wanted to end the death penalty because he thought it violated the constitutional strictures on cruel punishments I'd be more comfortable voting for him because this reasoning tells me more about what his future decisions might be. After all, you vote for one of these guys now and they get to make decisions on things that you never thought would come up, like a war on terror.