Johnson County Library Teen Reading Club discussion

Summer Reading June 11-17 > Revolutions usually involve bloody battles and cruel and inhumane treatment of people in the name of the cause. Does a revolution's idealistic end justify its violent means?

Comments Showing 1-8 of 8 (8 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Peggy (new)

Peggy (purplepenmore) | 31 comments Mod
Does any end always, sometimes or ever justify the means?

message 2: by Zaza (Mackenzie) (last edited Jun 11, 2012 09:32AM) (new)

Zaza (Mackenzie) (horseluvr4ever22004) | 2 comments It depends on what the future of the idea means for the people. Like if its going to help everyone in the future lead a much better life, and bring much more good than the bad in the end, (You would have to have lots more good to compensate for the bad) then I'd say yes.

On a scale its like sometimes you have to sacrifice and feel pain, to get something better. You can't just sit back and never change your life.

It's the same idea only on a much bigger scale.

message 3: by Zach (new)

Zach | 26 comments As long as the end result is better then the beginning and all that happened to get to the end

message 4: by Peggy (new)

Peggy (purplepenmore) | 31 comments Mod
In terms of a revolution, does the end excuse all violence and cruelty that occurs or just the amount that is necessary to achieve the end?

message 5: by Clara (new)

Clara | 16 comments I just wish there wasn't any violence in the world. I know that's really naive of me, but if you have to kill countless people and tear apart families, then is it really worth it? Can't you think of another way to achieve your ends? I don't think it's right to torture innocent people for a cause, however glorious the cause may be. I think it may be easy for some people to say that it's okay to do that, but when you know people that have gone through war or something horrible like that, it's hard to agree with Machiavelli's philosophy.

message 6: by Austin (new)

Austin (airjordan) | 22 comments I would say there's never an easy answer for this and it really depends on the means and end. I talked about this with a philosophy teacher once... hmm. I think the benefits of the end have to greatly outweigh the damage caused by the violent or otherwise bad means. The benefits also have to be almost immediate, not things that will take effect in the future, even the somewhat near future. Like, going to war against some country for a just cause might be ok, but if you go and drop an atomic bomb on that country's innocent population, it's not cool at all. Or if someone is attacking you and trying to kill you, it's ok, out of self defense, to stop him/her which might have to involve killing the person. Oh, and the bad means have to be a last, desperate resort. Just my (and from what I remember of my teacher's) thoughts.

District2tribute | 25 comments i don't really think it does becasue many lives were lost in all of the battles. on the other hand they did get free from the other side so I think it might if lots of lives didn't end.

District2tribute | 25 comments it also depends on the treatment on the other side that they were fighting against how they treated the side that was trieng to get independance

back to top