只要值得，不择手段达到目的是合理的。
（老题库212）
Although the idealist way is to achieve the noblest goal through the noblest means, in reality we sometimes have to resort to low means in order to attain high goals.
1. Theoretically, the means taken should be consistent with the ends in view.
2. However, in order to restore peace and social order, individuals states or the international community has repeatedly used force in history.
3. We should be alert to the possibility that individuals, organizations or government tend to plead a worthy goal in excuse of their contemptible means and private interests.
Begin: 上面的观点不能这么绝对，要针对不同情分析，否则可能会酿成大错。
1． 首先没有一个指标来说明什么是值得的。对不同的人，他们所衡量的"worthy"标准不同。如一个好的政治家他会认为为人民谋利益是值得的；而一个不好的政治家，如Hitler，他则会认为侵略其他国家，一切满足他的贪求的做法都是值得的。再如战争，对于战争两方的任一方都会认为打败对方这个goal是值得的。因此这个值不值得就法定义。
2． 假设现在我们为值得定义一个最起码的标准：不伤害他人利益，不违法。那么，的确，我们每个人都应该有为追求目标而the spirit of attaining our goal by making any effort。在一个社会中，没有科学家竭力的钻研，怎么会有科技的进步。没有政治家竭力的谋划，怎么会有人们的普遍福利。没有企业家竭力的追逐利益，怎么会有社会经济的持续发展。对于个人来说也是如此，个人不懈努力取得成功的例子让人称赞不已。如爱迪生试验了上百次作灯丝的材料，前N-1次都失败了，但他坚持不懈，最终成功；Nobel为了研制detonator差点forfeit his life。
3． 但是我们应该认识到，上面所说的 "making any effort" does not equal to "any means". "Making any effort" depends on the basis that the means you take are justifiable, while "any mean" not, which may 伤害他人甚至我们整个人类。如科学研究出成绩整个目标是好的，但剽窃或者作假就是不好的（MIT教授例子）；工业发展这个目标是"worthy"的，但为了工业发展而污染环境，打破生态平衡的这种方式is unjustiable；维护和平的愿望是好的，但打着维护和平的幌子，去侵略他国就是不好的……
End：一个人应该有奋斗的目标以及为自己的目标而奋斗的精神，但是像speaker说的那样，为追求……是不妥的。我们在追求我们目标的同时，应做到合法，不伤及他人的利益，不违反道德规范。
大负小正：
1.对于与自身的目的purpose 有关的事情的实现会不择手段 by any kind of means
对社会的秩序的破坏。
e.g.恐怖袭击，被那些人认为是圣战Jihad，却给其他人带来了恐怖和威胁
e.g.恶性竞争是市场混乱，利用贬低对手来抬高自己，百事可乐的广告将可口可乐当作垫脚砖。
e.g.学生为提高分数，不择手段，夹带，隐形耳机，学术作假，整形嫁接论文
e.g.医生为了提高收入，不顾病人死活。
2.这种行为有时却是必要而正确的
e.g.当有危害社会秩序及国家安全时，将不择手段来阻止其发生，如反恐，反毒。
主观点TS，还是不同意，应该以更合理的方式解决问题，否则只会给社会带来危害。
范文：
The speaker asserts that if a goal is worthy then any means of attaining that goal is justifiable. In my view this extreme position misses the point entirely. Whether certain means are justifiable in reaching a goal must be determined on a case-by-case basis, by weighing the benefits of attaining the goal against the costs, or harm, that might accrue along the way. This applies equally to individual goals and to societal goals.
Consider the goal of completing a marathon running race. If I need to reduce my working hours to train for the race, thereby jeopardizing my job, or if I run a high risk of incurring a permanent injury by training enough to prepare adequately for the event, then perhaps my goal is not worth attaining. Yet if I am a physically challenged person with the goal of completing a highly-publicized marathon, risking financial hardship or long-term injury might be worthwhile, not only for my own personal satisfaction but also for the inspiration that attaining the goal would provide many others.
Or consider the goal of providing basic food and shelter for an innocent child. Anyone would agree that this goal is highly worthy--considered apart from the means used to achieve it. But what if those means involve stealing from others? Or what if they involve employing the child in a sweatshop at the expense of educating the child? Clearly, determining the worthiness of such goals requires that we confront moral dilemmas, which we each solve individually--based on our own conscience, value system, and notions of fairness and equity.
On a societal level we determine the worthiness of our goals in much the same way--by weighing competing interests. For instance, any thoughtful person would agree that reducing air and water pollution is a worthy societal goal; dean air and water reduce the burden on our health-care resources and improves the quality of life for everyone in society. Yet to attain this goal would we be justified in forcing entire industries out of business, thereby running the risk of economic paralysis and widespread unemployment?
Or consider America's intervention in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Did our dual interest in a continuing flow of oil to the West and in deterring a potential threat against the security of the world justify our committing resources that could have been used instead for domestic social-welfare programs--or a myriad of other productive purposes? Both issues underscore the fact that the worthiness of a societal goal cannot be considered apart from the means and adverse consequences of attaining that goal.
In sum, the speaker begs the question. The worthiness of any goal, whether it be personal or societal, can be determined only by weighing the benefits of achieving the goal against its costs--to us as well as others.
Orignal From: If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable
没有评论:
发表评论