issue212 【today is the day】第六次作业 by revealing

revealingUID: 2507748

TOPIC: ISSUE212 - "If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable."

Is any means taken to attain a worthy goal are justifiable? Don’t we resort to low means in order to attain high goals? Obviously, people will find it almost impossible to come to an agreement on the highly controversial issue due to their different experiences and conflicting values. In the last analysis, I am more inclined to oppose the title of the statement.

Admittedly, in theory, the means taken should be consistent with the ends in view and the idealistic way is to achieve the noblest goal through the noblest means. Indeed, sometimes all means taken to attain a worthy goal are justifiable. For instance, Mother Teresa, winner of Nobel Peace Prize, contributed her whole life to help the poor in India. She tried her best to make their livings better and found an order of nuns dedicated to serving the poor. Teresa's goal was worthy and great, and she took a variety of means which were all justifiable to attain it. Even she once went to court to oppose certain foundation in her name, because she hoped that people should not simply concern her, but concern those people who needed help. Also she once offended some political bans: she managed to establish workstations in the Soviet Union, where all religious charities were prohibited, to help the victims of nuclear pollution in Chernobyl. Apparently, Teresa’s goal was worthy, and the lawsuit as well as the disobedience of her was both justifiable.

Nonetheless, not everyone is Mother Teresa; not all means which are taken to attain a worthy goal are justifiable. In the first palce, we should be alert to the possibility that individuals, organizations or governments tend to plead a worthy goal in excuse of their contemptible means and selfish interests. Is the real purpose of Iraq War to free the Iraqis from Saddam’s autocracy? Is the goal just so-called antiterrorism? Maybe it is not so simple. In the second place, although a goal is worthy for majorities, it is not worthy for everyone. Take the war as an example. Even if the goal is worthy, for independence or liberation or other just reasons, the death of many brave martyrs and more innocent people is justifiable either; or the enormous losses of their families are justifiable? Perhaps not all people think so.

In addition, even though the goal is indeed worthy for everyone, we cannot take any possible means to attain it. The issue that if a goal is worthy then any means taken to attain it is justifiable is more or less Machiavellism. For example, the purpose to eradication of infectious diseases is valuable, but the means that kills every patient is unacceptable; it is worthwhile that developing countries decrease birthrates, but means that forces people to take sterilizations is unjustifiable; it is a worthy goal to reduce accidents, but the means that eliminates all cars is ridiculous. When it comes to controlling pollution of air and water, would it be justifiable to dismiss the entire industries that are mainly responsible for the pollution? In fact, such a public policy would lead to widespread unemployment and endanger the social stability. As a result, we should regulate the means taken to achieve the goal-even if it is worthy.

To sum up, there are several factors relevant to the issue under discussion, which, unfortunately, I have no time to explore in details here. In my point of view above, we concede the fact that all means taken to attain a worthy goal are justifiable sometimes, but it depends on the person who holds the goal. On all account, we should judge whether a goal is worthy for all at first, and should place enough emphasis on the means for attending it and try our best to insure them to be justifiable.

baby12036UID: 2522977

Is any means taken to attain a worthy goal are justifiable? Don’t we resort to low means in order to attain high goals? Obviously, people will find it almost impossible to come to an agreement on the highly controversial issue due to their different experiences and conflicting values.(这句话很多ISSUE好象都能用呢) In the last analysis, I am more inclined to oppose the title of the statement.(开头很不错,论点明确)

Admittedly, in theory, the means taken should be consistent with the ends in view and the idealistic way is to achieve the noblest goal through the noblest means. Indeed, sometimes all means taken to attain a worthy goal are justifiable. For instance, Mother Teresa, winner of Nobel Peace Prize, contributed her whole life to help the poor in India. She tried her best to make their livings better and found an order of nuns dedicated to serving the poor. Teresa's goal was worthy and great, and she took a variety of means which were all justifiable to attain it. Even she once went to court to oppose certain foundation in her name, because she hoped that people should not simply concern her, but concern those people who needed help. Also she once offended some political bans: she managed to establish workstations in the Soviet Union, where all religious charities were prohibited, to help the victims of nuclear pollution in Chernobyl.(这个例子不错) Apparently, Teresa’s goal was worthy, and the lawsuit as well as the disobedience of her was both justifiable.

Nonetheless, not everyone is Mother Teresa; not all means which are taken to attain a worthy goal are justifiable. In the first palce, we should be alert to the possibility that individuals, organizations or governments tend to plead a worthy goal in excuse of their contemptible means and selfish interests. Is the real purpose of Iraq War to free the Iraqis from Saddam’s autocracy? Is the goal just so-called antiterrorism(这个有点不懂)? Maybe it is not so simple. In the second place, although a goal is worthy for majorities, it is not worthy for everyone. Take the war as an example. Even if the goal is worthy, for independence or liberation or other just reasons, the death of many brave martyrs and more innocent people is justifiable either; or the enormous losses of their families are justifiable? Perhaps not all people think so.

In addition, even though the goal is indeed worthy for everyone, we cannot take any possible means to attain it. The issue that if a goal is worthy then any means taken to attain it is justifiable is more or less Machiavellism. For example, the purpose to eradication of infectious diseases is valuable, but the means that kills every(这里有点绝对了,只是说有可能造成大的伤害不可接受应该就好了) patient is unacceptable; it is worthwhile that developing countries decrease birthrates, but means that forces people to take sterilizations is unjustifiable; it is a worthy goal to reduce accidents, but the means that eliminates all cars is ridiculous.(有点明白了,这里举的都是绝对化的例子啊!) When it comes to controlling pollution of air and water, would it be justifiable to dismiss the entire industries that are mainly responsible for the pollution? In fact, such a public policy would lead to widespread unemployment and endanger the social stability. As a result, we should regulate the means taken to achieve the goal-even if it is worthy.

To sum up, there are several factors relevant to the issue under discussion, which, unfortunately, I have no time to explore in details here. In my point of view above, we concede the fact that all means taken to attain a worthy goal are justifiable sometimes, but it depends on the person who holds the goal. On all account, we should judge whether a goal is worthy for all at first, and should place enough emphasis on the means for attending it and try our best to insure them to be justifiable.


写的很好呢,按照我的水平来说,没啥好改的,可能给予不了啥实质性的帮助.反倒是学习了很多.
感谢加见谅了!

[ 本帖最后由 baby12036 于 2008-8-9 11:55 编辑 ]