Killing Is Neither Bad Nor Good

Following up on a post from yesterday, what does it mean to be ends-over-means instead of means-over ends?

Let us take a simple example: killing. The difference between murder, self-defense, killing, war, and execution are a matter of semantics written into law and politics by the emotional needs of a tribe. Morality is cultural, and culture is genetic.

• Means-over-Ends says that killing as a method is wrong and therefore it can never be done except to stop other killings; it needs to be able to kill in order to keep killing sacred even if it is normally a negative thing.
• Ends-over-Means says that the morality of a killing depends on who is killed and if things get better afterwards; if you snuff an innocent, nothing improves, but if you kill a killer, retard, criminal, insane person, parasite, or idiot, life improves.

Naturally the herd fears the latter because this says that people have unequal value, which is definitely true whenever we all gather to do a task. Some are really good at it and valued, others are terrible, and most of us are in the middle somewhere.

One may not like the conclusion that ends-over-means is a superior way to think, but it does not like means-over-ends run into paradox. It does not demonize the method, only asks that the goal conform to a mission and produce better results in reality.

Most human beings cannot understand this distinction, which explains one solid reason why humanity ruling itself has never worked out. For now, let us let this thought hang in the air until its meaning reveals itself.