By: Otto Waldmann

Otto Waldmann — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:30:37 +0000

Dear Rabbi, I hope that this finds you well.
I dare interlude with a completely different take on the issue “between” the category of “ends” and seemingly the distinct one of “means”.
In actual fact there are no two distinct categories.
Simply put “means” are ends in themselves. Everything we endeavour is an end as such. Hurting someone in order to obtain specific benefits, i.e. ENDS, serves as an end in as much as “pain” constitutes a desired affect, an end of the act of physical pressure/constraints.
This is also to say that if ethical principles apply to the notion of “purpose”,”ends”, in the same manner, the same ethical principles apply to what we falsely categorise distinctly as “means”. One may differentiate between a non tangible category, such as an idea, a principle, as an end to be followed and the distinct category of physical means of implementing the said principle. Still no distinction in ethical terms.
When the example of one’s efforts in achieving estetical, lascivious visual effects is seen as subservient to certain “material” effects, advantages, it is falsely seen as means of “deception”. Humans derive necessary, normal biological feelings from encountering pleasing sights, therefore what could be means of deceit are in fact ends in themselves of satisfying certain needs. Beauty , the satisfaction of emotional states is not a “means” but and end in itself, one inexorably contained in human existence.

best regards

otto

Comments on: Ask the rabbi…Rabbi Raymond Apple answers

By: Otto Waldmann