Quote:
Originally Posted by Letum
Assuming you believe your cause to be morally right, effectiveness and
morality are very much interlinked.
You can't be good ineffectually and still claim you have been good.
|
I'm not sure this holds water.
Let's examine an example: say you were looking to overthrow a despot. As agreed upon earlier, a peaceful attempt at doing so would be the better option, and is used first. It fails. Next, the NON-"better" option, a violent revolution, is tried and succeeds.
Now going back to your statement:
Quote:
If the best possible approach failed, why would any less better approaches
succeeded?
|
So, we are left with one of two possibilities:
1 - "Better" does not equate to effectiveness, or;
2 - The non-violent approach is not always "better".
This goes back to this statement that you made (and I agree with):
Quote:
That would make the peaceful approach the best possible approach of
the two.
|
Considering that this statement isn't qualified by the results but rather the behavior itself, effectiveness is irrelevent.