P and Y are two white outcomes, Q is the justification of a black action; X is a white action that is inherently justified:
P is the justifier for Q
Therefore, whether Y or Not Y, X; but if P then Q, if Not P then Not Q.
If P then Q, if the ends are good then the black action was justified
if Not P then Not Q, if the ends are bad then the black action was not justified
sounds like your saying the ends justify the means there, but if you're not then I am missing what you're saying in the above.
whether y or not y, x, regardless of the actual outcome the white action is justified
Here it sounds like your saying the ends don't matter at all in this case, even if the white action actually causes more harm than good. So it sounds like your changing the rules.
It is because a 'white' action is one that is inherently good, taking that action is justified in and of itself because it's acceptability is self-evident; it does not need a justifier. Even if a negative consequence occurs, the 'white' action is still justified because it does not depend on the results to be justified. On the other hand, a 'black' action requires a 'whiter' result as justification, it is not justified in and of itself; so if it has undesired consequences the action is no longer justified.
So like I said, in one case it sounds like you're saying the ends are what's important, and in the other it sounds like you're saying that you're saying that the ends don't matter at all.
The problem is that action Q has is that it depends on P but since you cannot determine whether P will successfully come about then you cannot determine that Q is true until after the fact, while X is independent of Y so it doesn't even if Y is unsuccessful X is still justified.
more of the same....
Right, as I already concurred, undesired consequences can result from purely good actions, but this is only only in conjunction with other imperfections in the world around it, not a direct result of the good action in and of itself (ideally, there would be nothing to cause something good to go bad). In any case, the point that this is getting at is that a good action is justified in and of itself, it doesn't need to result in a better accomplishment to be justified retroactively, a person operating in Simple Black and White doesn't depend on circumstances outside of their control to justify their actions.
No they are not, to take a page out of Master Yoda's book, "Do, or do not. There is no try."
Do or do not says that only what you actually accomplish is important: the ends, there is no try says that intentions don't matter at all
Right, as I already concurred, undesired consequences can result from purely good actions, but this is only only in conjunction with other imperfections in the world around it, not a direct result of the good action in and of itself (ideally, there would be nothing to cause something good to go bad). In any case, the point that this is getting at is that a good action is justified in and of itself, it doesn't need to result in a better accomplishment to be justified retroactively, a person operating in Simple Black and White doesn't depend on circumstances outside of their control to justify their actions.
Now it sounds like you're saying the ends don't matter at all for a white action, so it again sounds like you're changing the rules
In any case, if it seems to you that I was trying to say that 'the ends justify the means' then I'd really ask you to reread my post without skimming it
So in response to this I would say that I covered everything relevant to this discussion that was in your post not picking out a single statement after skimming it
It sounds like your saying that the ends matter for black actions, but not for whiteones and that intentions matter for white actions, but not black ones. So it sounds very much like ou're changing the rules.
Post Merged: August 06, 2010, 01:09:10 AM
"I just gave him one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight"
"Eight? You gave him eight numbers? Remind me not to ever be a spy with you."
