Ya know, I get really tired of the whole “does the end justify the means” argument. It’s a phony argument.
Looked at logically, there are two extremist positions. The end always justifies any means. The end never justifies the means.
The problem is that nobody believes either extremist position. With the exception of religious or political fanatics, nobody really believes the end justifies any means whatsoever. In this case, the problem is not that they are making this argument, it’s that they are fanatics.
On the other end of the scale, almost nobody believes the end never justifies the means. I’m opposed to abortion, but there are certain cases where it’s better to lose one life than two. Anybody who believes otherwise is, IMO, a fanatic, again.
Similarly, theft is always wrong, but if I were the first person at a car crash I’d have no problem breaking into a pharmacy to steal first aid supplies to try to save a life.
IOW, the whole ends vs. means argument is a false dichotomy. A good enough means (defense of your country against commie aggression) justifies many means that would otherwise be unjust. Some ends are bad, and even good means are wrong if used to achieve them. And there are many good ends for which a great many means are not justified.
The issue is thus not a black/white one. It’s a sliding scale. Unlike many moral issues, it actually is shades of gray.
Trying to turn it into black vs. white just obscures the real argument: Does THIS end justify THIS means?
Well what we do know is that Dumb0, by his own admission, wasn’t very good at “ethics” in middle school.
Not sure why that doesn’t surprise me in the least.