Ends and means

For me the way also matters a lot else there would be no happiness in making that end meet. U'll still feel empty..

There can be no two opinions that our object or end must be good.

But what about the way we accomplish our ends.

Mahatma Gandhi held that ends should also be pure. Once he remarked that he would not like independence if this was through bad means or violence.

Others say that ens justify the means.

What do you say? Should we employ honest and good means to attain our object? Or it is more important to achieve- by hook or by crook. .

Of course not ! It is even more important to take the straight path to achieve anything otherwise a day comes when we will not be able to face ourselves, that is of course if one has a conscience , otherwise political and business class dont seem to have any but at the same time thrive in life ...

There can be no two opinions that our object or end must be good.

But what about the way we accomplish our ends.

Mahatma Gandhi held that ends should also be pure. Once he remarked that he would not like independence if this was through bad means or violence.

Others say that ens justify the means.

What do you say? Should we employ honest and good means to attain our object? Or it is more important to achieve- by hook or by crook. .

I believe in 'Honesty is best policy' and never prefer crooked means, even if I can get more benefits. Instead, I may not get everything in this life due to my principle. Yet am happy with what I get through true means

Honesty is the best policy.If we are honest we can achieve our target.But now a days it has disappeared.People just choose the wrong path for their success.

Honesty is the best policy.If we are honest we can achieve our target.But now a days it has disappeared.People just choose the wrong path for their success.

yet, if you don't want to regret in future, let us follow right paths. It may be a little hard and difficult. But its success gives you the happiness that nothing can give you.

All will agree that we should follow path of honesty. But what about peace or violence. It is considered by Gandhian that we should never use violence for attaining our goal. If the other person is very obstinate and does not understand the language of peace, would you adopt tit for tat or follow the noble means of tolerance and non violence towards him.

All will agree that we should follow path of honesty. But what about peace or violence. It is considered by Gandhian that we should never use violence for attaining our goal. If the other person is very obstinate and does not understand the language of peace, would you adopt tit for tat or follow the noble means of tolerance and non violence towards him.

I feel that even though one should avoid violence as far as possible but sometimes it is necessary to take up violent method to bring a peaceful end.For instance, if a terrorist attack a nation, then it would be stupid to follow the policy of tolerance and non violence.

All will agree that we should follow path of honesty. But what about peace or violence. It is considered by Gandhian that we should never use violence for attaining our goal. If the other person is very obstinate and does not understand the language of peace, would you adopt tit for tat or follow the noble means of tolerance and non violence towards him.

I feel that even though one should avoid violence as far as possible but sometimes it is necessary to take up violent method to bring a peaceful end.For instance, if a terrorist attack a nation, then it would be stupid to follow the policy of tolerance and non violence.

very often, we need to take decisions according to situation demands.....violence or non-violence methods

All will agree that we should follow path of honesty. But what about peace or violence. It is considered by Gandhian that we should never use violence for attaining our goal. If the other person is very obstinate and does not understand the language of peace, would you adopt tit for tat or follow the noble means of tolerance and non violence towards him.

Food for thought! I believe there are many situations in life when you come across people or conditions where your politeness or calmness is considered your weakness and you have no option but to follow the tit for tat policy.

There can be no two opinions that our object or end must be good.

But what about the way we accomplish our ends.

Mahatma Gandhi held that ends should also be pure. Once he remarked that he would not like independence if this was through bad means or violence.

Others say that ens justify the means.

What do you say? Should we employ honest and good means to attain our object? Or it is more important to achieve- by hook or by crook. .

At that time Mahatma followed that one so he got success but now a days we cannot follow this as no one will leave us.

All will agree that we should follow path of honesty. But what about peace or violence. It is considered by Gandhian that we should never use violence for attaining our goal. If the other person is very obstinate and does not understand the language of peace, would you adopt tit for tat or follow the noble means of tolerance and non violence towards him.

I feel that even though one should avoid violence as far as possible but sometimes it is necessary to take up violent method to bring a peaceful end.For instance, if a terrorist attack a nation, then it would be stupid to follow the policy of tolerance and non violence.

I agree ! It is also a fact that violence begets more violence and there is no end to it.I feel that communication is far more powerful and can help where other methods fail....

All will agree that we should follow path of honesty. But what about peace or violence. It is considered by Gandhian that we should never use violence for attaining our goal. If the other person is very obstinate and does not understand the language of peace, would you adopt tit for tat or follow the noble means of tolerance and non violence towards him.

I feel that even though one should avoid violence as far as possible but sometimes it is necessary to take up violent method to bring a peaceful end.For instance, if a terrorist attack a nation, then it would be stupid to follow the policy of tolerance and non violence.

I agree ! It is also a fact that violence begets more violence and there is no end to it.I feel that communication is far more powerful and can help where other methods fail....

Settling a dispute by any means but by non violence and persuasion only. It is best to use the path of persuasion, peace and non violence. But you must achieve your goal. For the sake of adhering to golden means, you cannot frustrate your goal. So, if necessary, you must use violence. But violence should be minimum necessary.
Even law allows you to use violence .for protection of life and property. But violence must not be excessive and this should be only minimum necessary on the occasion. That is why the police also are instructed to use minimum force while dispersing a mob- first warning, then tear gas, then lathi charge and firing only if absolutely necessary and that too in air or at legs and not head.

something that you are not interested in but that you do because it will help you to achieve something else.

Mahatma Gandhi was right or wrong I don't know. I was born after independence of India. I have heard but never felt the situations of that age. I have never seen the incidence after partition of India and Bengal. It was horrible freedom. Even today also many people who are in power, has made the situation worst. Freedom and democracy is worthless.

All will agree that we should follow path of honesty. But what about peace or violence. It is considered by Gandhian that we should never use violence for attaining our goal. If the other person is very obstinate and does not understand the language of peace, would you adopt tit for tat or follow the noble means of tolerance and non violence towards him.

I feel that even though one should avoid violence as far as possible but sometimes it is necessary to take up violent method to bring a peaceful end.For instance, if a terrorist attack a nation, then it would be stupid to follow the policy of tolerance and non violence.

I agree ! It is also a fact that violence begets more violence and there is no end to it.I feel that communication is far more powerful and can help where other methods fail....

Settling a dispute by any means but by non violence and persuasion only. It is best to use the path of persuasion, peace and non violence. But you must achieve your goal. For the sake of adhering to golden means, you cannot frustrate your goal. So, if necessary, you must use violence. But violence should be minimum necessary.
Even law allows you to use violence .for protection of life and property. But violence must not be excessive and this should be only minimum necessary on the occasion. That is why the police also are instructed to use minimum force while dispersing a mob- first warning, then tear gas, then lathi charge and firing only if absolutely necessary and that too in air or at legs and not head.

Friends in legends and epics we have read that God has told us, if wrong doers cross their limit, finish them off. Sin can be explained and excussed to a certain limit and not after that. God and Goddesses have themselves fought war against the demons and the wrong doers. Sometimes it becomes necessary.