---

  The implicit or explicit basis for virtually all political actions in the modern world is the idea that “the ends justify the means.” In other words, as long as one examines only the goal/purpose/reason/ends that one desires/wishes to accomplish, and as long as someone, somewhere benefits from that result, then one not need examine or justify the means/process/actions used to obtain those “positive” results.

This is a profoundly unjust, immoral, and illogical position to maintain and should be expunged from all human considerations and interactions.


1. This principle is not compossible. Not everyone can practice it at the same time, e.g., if I murder you for end X, you cannot subsequently murder me for end Y.

2. A premise underlying this principle is that an individual and/or a group and/or a majority of individuals is the standard for determining whether action set “X” is proper or improper, i.e., true or false, correct or incorrect. An appeal to majority as a justification for “X” is a logical fallacy. Truth is not determined by any individual or group but by correspondence with reality, i.e., reality is the standard by which we determine if our identification of “X” is true or false (the Correspondence Theory of Truth). If the “majority” were the standard, the result would be that people are infallible, incapable of error. Infallibility renders logic irrelevant as a means for humans to gain knowledge. Relativism is another species of an appeal to majority and is thus rendered equally wrong as a guide to truth.

3. This principle would also lead to both X and not-X being “true” at the same time, e.g., Group A: It is okay to murder members of group B for benefit C; Group B: It is wrong to murder us for benefit C. There are no contradictions in reality. As axioms, the Law of Noncontradiction and the Law of Identity reveal that contradictions are an impossibility. The only contradictions that exist are those in the identifications a person or persons might make in regard to reality. (Again, cf. to the “Correspondence Theory of Truth.”)

4. The premise in point 2 — an appeal to majority is proper — is an extended example of subjectivism, another logical fallacy, i.e., that X is true simply because person A wants or believes X to be true. Reality — not a person, not people, not a group, not society, not a nation, not humanity — is the standard for determining whether X is true. Subjectivism with its attendant infallibility renders any and all knowledge or truth claims meaningless since anything and everything is “true” and “not-true” at the same time and in the same respect. Subjectivism rejects the very concept of “objectivity,” i.e., the idea that any standard exists outside an individual for judging truth or morality.

5. This alleged principle is an example of the “tyranny of the majority.” The “majority” is never a proper standard for determining the propriety of any action or belief. A group, society, nation, or humanity is nothing more than a shorthand way of describing the relationships among a number of individuals. Only individual people are entities and primaries. No grouping of humans is an entity or can ever be a primary, i.e., exist separate and apart from the individuals that comprise it. The “tyranny of the majority” is a result of relying on pure “democracy,” i.e., the rule of the majority, i.e., the dictatorship of 50% + 1 over the rest of society, as a standard for determining what should or should not be done, what is or is not right or moral.