Speaker 1: Life Audio on today's episode of Timeless Wisdom.
Speaker 2: So here's one today I want to I want to
Speaker 2: attack a cliche. Now, let me say a word about cliches.
Speaker 2: These are things, These are lines that are used over
Speaker 2: and over and they become a cliche. A haste makes
Speaker 2: waste is a good is a good example? Anyway, Haste
Speaker 2: makes waste is a great example. And it's true. Most
Speaker 2: cliches are true. Okay, However, there is there there there
Speaker 2: is a small fraction that is used and and just
Speaker 2: isn't true for And the one I'm dealing with today
Speaker 2: is the ends don't justify the means.
Speaker 1: That's coming up on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Welcome
Speaker 1: to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Here thousands of hours
Speaker 1: of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to
Speaker 1: purchase Dennis Prager Rational Bibles, go to Dennisprager dot com.
Speaker 2: Or not to be.
Speaker 3: That is the question?
Speaker 2: Where was God? Isn't God supposed to be good, supposed
Speaker 2: to love us?
Speaker 4: Does God want us to suffer ten years?
Speaker 2: You're not finished yet?
Speaker 3: Why did you go there?
Speaker 2: Who are you?
Speaker 1: Bruce?
Speaker 2: I'm God?
Speaker 3: Bingo?
Speaker 2: Yazi?
Speaker 5: Is that your final answer.
Speaker 3: Our survey says God.
Speaker 6: Bing ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.
Speaker 1: Well, it was nice to meet you God, Thank you
Speaker 1: for the Grand Canyon, and good luck with the apocalypse.
Speaker 2: Hello everybody, this is the Ultimate Issues Hour on the
Speaker 2: Dennis Prager Show. I enjoy this hour immensely feedback from you.
Speaker 2: Many or all or nearly all of you feel the same.
Speaker 2: I talk about some great issue in life on this
Speaker 2: hour and try to clarify it for you, and we
Speaker 2: have some really good dialogues. I just might add something
Speaker 2: I long ago made the observation that, ironically, though people
Speaker 2: tend to be wiser as they get older, they abandon
Speaker 2: talk about ultimate issues at a fairly early age. When
Speaker 2: you were in college, you know, you talk to kids
Speaker 2: at you know, at midnight or something if you weren't
Speaker 2: drunk about you know, is there a God? Is there
Speaker 2: an after life? What is good and evil? What is
Speaker 2: the purpose of life? And then after college, shortly afterward,
Speaker 2: one is preoccupied with the mundane. And I don't say
Speaker 2: it in a negative way. We have to be or
Speaker 2: we don't survive making a living, getting married, raising kids.
Speaker 2: I mean, these are the things that take up people's
Speaker 2: attention plus entertainment, of which there is a vast amount
Speaker 2: and a lot of it meaningless and some of it wonderful.
Speaker 2: And so what happens is we forget the ultimate issues discussions. Also,
Speaker 2: a lot of people make up their minds on issues
Speaker 2: when they're twenty or eighteen or twenty two, and that's it.
Speaker 2: I mean, how many of you have changed your minds
Speaker 2: on any big issue since you're twenty interesting question like
Speaker 2: capital punishment. It's not my subject today, but that's an example.
Speaker 2: Most people are against capital punishment at twenty, or against
Speaker 2: capital punishment at forty, and it's just they decided at
Speaker 2: that age and that was it, and there's no more
Speaker 2: to talk about. So it's a very good thing that
Speaker 2: we review this whole issue of the ultimate issues of
Speaker 2: life on the show now that we're adult. So here's
Speaker 2: one today I wanted. I want to attack a cliche. Now,
Speaker 2: let me say a word about cliches. These are things,
Speaker 2: These are lines that are used over and over and
Speaker 2: they become a cliche. A haste makes waste? Is a
Speaker 2: good is a good example? Give me give me a
Speaker 2: few more? Actually, well, and and and i'll and I'll
Speaker 2: analyze a stitting well of that, but nobody uses that.
Speaker 2: A stitch in time saves nine? If you William, did
Speaker 2: you ever hear that in your life? I'm telling you, Alan,
Speaker 2: you're dating yourself. Even I never used it, Na, but
Speaker 2: it's the cliche. Nobody uses anymore. Stitch in time saves nine.
Speaker 2: So if you said that to somebody today, they wouldn't
Speaker 2: have a First of all, I don't even know what
Speaker 2: it means. I mean, I know what it means. Do
Speaker 2: something in its time and then you'll save longer time.
Speaker 2: But you think I ever stitched anything to together to
Speaker 2: know what it means. Anyway, Haste makes waste. Is a
Speaker 2: great example, and it's true. Most cliches are true. Okay, however,
Speaker 2: there is there there is a small fraction that is
Speaker 2: used and and just isn't true. And the one I'm
Speaker 2: dealing with today is the ends don't justify the means.
Speaker 2: It is said so often, and it is said as
Speaker 2: if it's a given. The ends don't justify the means. Now, sometimes,
Speaker 2: of course that's true a silly example. So just to
Speaker 2: make it clear, I'll use a silly example, one that
Speaker 2: nobody could dispute. If your end is to exterminate the m.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Your house has become somewhat infested with cockroaches, right,
Speaker 2: and somebody brings along a bazooka and blows up your house.
Speaker 2: The ends getting rid of the cockroaches do not justify
Speaker 2: the means bazookaizing your house. Okay, we are all in agreement.
Speaker 2: In that instance, the ends did not justify the means. However,
Speaker 2: if your house were infested with terrorists who were intent
Speaker 2: on blowing up parts of your city, then the use
Speaker 2: of a bazuka may well be justified. Now, how then,
Speaker 2: does the same exact means using a bazuka to blow
Speaker 2: up your house or parts of your house? How is
Speaker 2: it in case one justified and in case two unjustified?
Speaker 2: The answer is because of the end. Of course, the
Speaker 2: ends justify the means. When you are fighting terrorists, a
Speaker 2: bazuka means the means of a bazuka is warranted. If
Speaker 2: you are fighting cockroaches, then the use of a bazooka
Speaker 2: is unwarranted. Now, the reason I sound so annoyed is
Speaker 2: because I am annoyed. That's why that I can't stand
Speaker 2: fuzzy thinking when people should think better. Sometimes the ends
Speaker 2: justify the means, and sometimes they don't end of issue.
Speaker 2: But to categorically state ends don't justify means is not true.
Speaker 2: Now call please, because if you have, you know, any
Speaker 2: doubts about this, or you think I'm wrong, or you
Speaker 2: want to give examples in either direction, I am all
Speaker 2: ears one eight prager seven seven six one eight p
Speaker 2: r a g Er seven seven six, which translates digitally
Speaker 2: to eight seven seven two four three triple seven six
Speaker 2: eight seven seven two four three triple seven six. You
Speaker 2: can say, of course, you can can say in this
Speaker 2: instance the ends don't justify the means. Of course that
Speaker 2: would be that would be appropriate. But to offer as
Speaker 2: a general rule that ends don't justify means is just wrong.
Speaker 2: I don't know how else means are justified except by ends.
Speaker 2: That's the whole way we know whether it's justified or not.
Speaker 2: Ends ends are exactly what justify means or they're not justified.
Speaker 2: How else do you know? Is the use of nuclear
Speaker 2: weapons justified as which means as a means overwhelmingly not?
Speaker 2: Was it justified in World War two? End World War
Speaker 2: two with Japan? I think it was the ends, saving
Speaker 2: millions of Allied and millions of Japanese lives justified the
Speaker 2: means of drop being an atom bomb on a city.
Speaker 2: I hate to say it. It hurts me to say
Speaker 2: it because of the suffering that it entailed. But it
Speaker 2: prevented so much more suffering of both Japanese and Allies
Speaker 2: that there was there was no choice. Now, you can agree,
Speaker 2: you can disagree, but at least understand the point that
Speaker 2: the only way to justify means or unjustify means is
Speaker 2: by their ends. So the whole cliche is meaningless and untrue,
Speaker 2: worse than meaningless. Half the time the ends justify the means.
Speaker 2: Half the time they don't. Uh, alrighty one A prager
Speaker 2: seven seven six eight seven seven two four three triple
Speaker 2: seven six. I cannot think offhand. Maybe some of you
Speaker 2: will remind me. I cannot think offhand. Uh of a
Speaker 2: more frequently used, incorrect cliche. See, war is not the
Speaker 2: answer is not a cliche. It's it's a silly, silly,
Speaker 2: silly bumper sticker. So it's it's but by the way,
Speaker 2: it's a it's an offshoot of the ends don't justify
Speaker 2: the means.
Speaker 4: War.
Speaker 2: War is never justified. That's what that's what it says. Basically, Okay,
Speaker 2: let's go to Dallas, Texas. Josh, Hi, Josh, Dennis Prager,
Speaker 2: thank you, Hey, I was just calling.
Speaker 3: To I think make a little bit of a clarification
Speaker 3: because some people, I think incorrectly use the end doesn't
Speaker 3: justify the means. I think that, of course good ends
Speaker 3: justified good means. But I think what really most of
Speaker 3: us mean when we say that is that you can
Speaker 3: never do good or you can never do evil, so
Speaker 3: that good may come. In other words, evil, Our good
Speaker 3: ends do not justify evil means. The example you use
Speaker 3: is something that I would say is perfectly acceptable because
Speaker 3: I don't think that there's anything intrinsically evil about firing
Speaker 3: a bazooka.
Speaker 2: So well, then what's intrinsically evil?
Speaker 3: Well, I think that there are. I think cold blooded
Speaker 3: murder would be interesting.
Speaker 2: Yes, but cold blooded murder the means was killing. Sometimes
Speaker 2: it's it's totally justified.
Speaker 3: You would make a distinction though, between murder and killing.
Speaker 2: I mean, yes, hold on with me, hold on with me,
Speaker 2: and it is a very important discussion. You see. My
Speaker 2: contention is that we only decide whether the means are
Speaker 2: evil based on the ends. That's my whole point. Back
Speaker 2: in a moment.
Speaker 1: This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.
Speaker 1: Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom.
Speaker 2: Hi everybody, Dennis Brager Here the Ultimate Issues hour Tuesday,
Speaker 2: the third hour of my show, and if you don't
Speaker 2: get all three hours of the show, you should consider
Speaker 2: doing terrible things to your station. Joking joking joke alert,
Speaker 2: joke alert. The subject for today's Ultimate Issue show is
Speaker 2: taking on the erroneous cliche the ends never justify the means.
Speaker 2: Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I don't know of
Speaker 2: any other way in general to assess the justification of
Speaker 2: means except by the ends. Killing, right, Killing is justified
Speaker 2: in some cases depending on what the end is. If
Speaker 2: you're if the end is to get rid of a
Speaker 2: sharp shooter who was shooting children, then it's it. Then
Speaker 2: the ends justify killing. Uh. If it is a man
Speaker 2: going into a home and just murdering people, the ends
Speaker 2: being to shut them up so that they don't witness
Speaker 2: his burglary, then clearly the ends don't justify the means.
Speaker 2: All right, now, let's go. Let's go back here to
Speaker 2: Josh in Dallas. Josh, thanks for holding on and thank
Speaker 2: you for calling. So you were saying, if the means
Speaker 2: are evil, then they're never justified by the ends. But
Speaker 2: but but what is an intrinsically evil act? Just give
Speaker 2: me one no, no, wait wait wait wait wait wait
Speaker 2: wait wait wait wait the act, the act is killing.
Speaker 2: You determine if it's murder, cold blooded or not by
Speaker 2: the context, by the ends. Correct.
Speaker 3: So, I mean what you're looking at is not just
Speaker 3: the objective. You're looking at the subjective and the relative.
Speaker 3: So in order for the right act, yeah, you have
Speaker 3: to have all of those be in line.
Speaker 6: Correct.
Speaker 3: The example I always used to explain this, and we
Speaker 3: have a really good example recently in the news is
Speaker 3: you know, abortion. I think it is an excellent end
Speaker 3: to seek the end of abortion, But to kill George
Speaker 3: Tiller in order to accomplish that end is not justified.
Speaker 3: Even though it's a great end to save the lives
Speaker 3: of little babies, it is not justified.
Speaker 2: But by the way, I will just say, I will
Speaker 2: just say, you picked a very difficult example. Incidentally, I
Speaker 2: don't I don't justify his murder whatsoever. I hope the
Speaker 2: guy is actually I hope he's I hope he is
Speaker 2: a given capital punishment the murderer. However, however, for those
Speaker 2: you do believe that it is mass murder, abortion uhh,
Speaker 2: the exact same moral equivalent as Nazi mass murder, Communist
Speaker 2: mass murder. It is hard. I don't know how you
Speaker 2: make the case that it is entirely unjustified.
Speaker 3: Well, I think you would have to. You have to
Speaker 3: look at what we call the principle of double effect, correct,
Speaker 3: where you don't ever intend to do evil, but the evil.
Speaker 3: You know some things that are nobody entirely listening.
Speaker 2: Nobody intends to do evil, very few people. The abortion
Speaker 2: doctor doesn't intend to do evil either. That's what intentions
Speaker 2: no matter. Listen to my Ultimate Issues show on intentions.
Speaker 2: That was I think the last one. Intentions don't mount
Speaker 2: to a hill of beans. It's what it's what one does,
Speaker 2: not when one intends. Look, you're obviously a thoughtful young man.
Speaker 2: I appreciate your call. Uh that was not a good
Speaker 2: example though, because uh, there is If you really do
Speaker 2: believe that there is that there is no difference between uh,
Speaker 2: abortion and or a doctor who performs let's say, a
Speaker 2: thousand abortions and a man who murders a thousand people,
Speaker 2: then I don't know how you exactly argue morally against
Speaker 2: killing that person. Now, I don't think it's the same.
Speaker 2: I am absolutely opposed to abortion, except in the case
Speaker 2: of saving a mother's life. But I don't use the
Speaker 2: language of mass murder for that very reason because I
Speaker 2: would have to actually if it is mass murder identical.
Speaker 2: And I'm not going to debate this now. This is
Speaker 2: not the subjects, so don't call in on it. Forgive me,
Speaker 2: you know, I'll happily talk about this another time. I
Speaker 2: talk about just about everything. But if one uses that
Speaker 2: language and means it literally, it is very hard to
Speaker 2: come up with an argument against shooting an abortion doctor.
Speaker 2: Which is no justification for shooting the abortion doctor, but
Speaker 2: it is an argument for not using the language of
Speaker 2: mass murder, mass humide, terrible evil, terrible sin, immoral. There
Speaker 2: are many things that it can be called and ought
Speaker 2: to be called, all right. So that's that's why it
Speaker 2: wasn't a good example. All right. Now, Again, our our
Speaker 2: our topic here is ends. Justifying means. That's exactly how
Speaker 2: means half the time are justified because we know what
Speaker 2: the what what our ends are. Okay, Long Beach, California
Speaker 2: and John hello, John Dennis Praeger.
Speaker 5: His call was great. You know, I'm I have to
Speaker 5: say it's gonna be tough to follow. But going back
Speaker 5: to one of the last examples he gave, how about
Speaker 5: allowing the harvesting of children in the womb for stem
Speaker 5: cell treatment. If he harvest one, beat us and the
Speaker 5: heal one hundred people, wouldn't it be worthwhile?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, that for a challenge, right though. It is
Speaker 2: a good challenge. That is why good people differ on
Speaker 2: this one. I never said from the beginning of this hour,
Speaker 2: I have not said, or in fact, I've said the opposite.
Speaker 2: I said, sometimes the ends do justify the means, and
Speaker 2: sometimes they don't. My argument is not that the ends
Speaker 2: always justify the means, of course not. My argument is
Speaker 2: that we should drop the cliche that the ends don't
Speaker 2: justify the means half the time they do. You have
Speaker 2: picked an extremely complex issue. I am opposed to the
Speaker 2: harvesting of nascent human beings of embryos for stem cell research.
Speaker 5: I am we could go I mean my whole I
Speaker 5: agree with him that. You know, I don't see how
Speaker 5: you can say, let us do evil and good they
Speaker 5: come and I can give you a couple more examples.
Speaker 5: I mean, you could you use the example of the Appams.
Speaker 2: Well, yes, the atom bomb.
Speaker 5: A lot of people on both sides or have good arguments,
Speaker 5: but why not just start every war with an atom
Speaker 5: bomb strike to save life if less people are going
Speaker 5: to die in the atomic strike.
Speaker 2: Because we assume, we assume that, well before that we
Speaker 2: can be victorious. You don't know, you are not a
Speaker 2: proper that who knows the future. Well, however, I will say.
Speaker 5: This, that's that's the way they made a decision in Japan.
Speaker 5: Like you said, they don't know the future, but they
Speaker 5: had a pretty good idea based.
Speaker 2: On there was no other way. It was clear there
Speaker 2: was no other way to end the war. That was
Speaker 2: a given. It was a given the number of people
Speaker 2: on both sides who would die if the bomb were
Speaker 2: not dropped. So you had to you had well, you know,
Speaker 2: certain things you do know in the future. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 5: Uments on both sides. I've heard them both, and I.
Speaker 2: Don't think there is any good argument on the other side.
Speaker 2: I don't. But but if you if the very fact
Speaker 2: that you believe that there were good arguments for the
Speaker 2: atom bomb proves my point that the ends in that
Speaker 2: case justified the means, a means which overwhelmingly we would
Speaker 2: deplore the dropping of an atom bomb on civilians.
Speaker 5: There are a number of examples I can give no, no.
Speaker 2: No, wa wait wait wait just the wait wait it's
Speaker 2: not you're moving on?
Speaker 5: Do you what I'm saying? I just don't let good
Speaker 5: may come. That's the bottom line. I agree with the
Speaker 5: first caller that what you can't prescribe the means, what
Speaker 5: is right you must do, and what is wrong you mustn't.
Speaker 2: Okay, I feel terrible, but I don't think we got
Speaker 2: anywhere back in a moment.
Speaker 1: This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.
Speaker 1: Now back to more of Dennis Praeger's Timeless Wisdom.
Speaker 2: Wow, this is fascinating. Pretty much have equal numbers of
Speaker 2: the folks religious and secular, right and left disagreeing with me.
Speaker 2: That's why I chose this, because it is such a
Speaker 2: widespread statement. The ends never justify the means or the
Speaker 2: ends don't you just toy the means that I've decided
Speaker 2: to think it through with you, because in fact, half
Speaker 2: the time the ends do justify means, and half the
Speaker 2: time they don't. So it's not worth making any generalized
Speaker 2: statement about ends and means because it depends on the situation. Well,
Speaker 2: I feel terrible about my last caller because we really
Speaker 2: got nowhere, and it's not by I mean nowhere is
Speaker 2: not that he didn't convince me, or I didn't convince him.
Speaker 2: It's that we were no clearer about where we differed,
Speaker 2: which is always troubling to me. I like clarity. I
Speaker 2: don't care if you agree with me or not at all,
Speaker 2: because I kept asking, and then we would move, or
Speaker 2: I felt he would move to another subject. And I said,
Speaker 2: if the very fact that you agree that there are
Speaker 2: two sides, at least, well that there are two sides.
Speaker 2: So the issue of was the atom bomb justified means
Speaker 2: you agree with me. Normally the means of dropping it
Speaker 2: Adam Baum on civilians is clearly evil, of course, But
Speaker 2: the very fact that there is a case where you
Speaker 2: even acknowledge it might not have been evil. I think
Speaker 2: it was correct means that the ends ending World War II,
Speaker 2: saving millions of Japanese and Allied lives was worth it.
Speaker 2: So it was the ends that justified those means. Now,
Speaker 2: there are things that can never be justified, or or
Speaker 2: I cannot imagine a circumstance where you take innocent people
Speaker 2: you and you adjust, and you sadistically perform experiments on them,
Speaker 2: like the Nazis did in their camps. We freeze people alive.
Speaker 2: And well, they said, well it was for medical research, Dennis,
Speaker 2: what if they found out some great cure that way,
Speaker 2: it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter that that is so
Speaker 2: intrinsically wrong. And by the way it was, it was
Speaker 2: not done for medical research. So it's a phony end
Speaker 2: in any event, because they did it for sadists, for
Speaker 2: the statistic reasons they would have given the people's sedatives
Speaker 2: they enjoyed, inflicting suffering. Okay, let's go to Kathy in
Speaker 2: sharn Ohio. Is that correct, Kathy Sharan Sharon, I knew,
Speaker 2: I am right. Our screen will be through Leah chastised.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we're between Cleveland and act and Ohio.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I wanted to disagree with you, and I wanted to
Speaker 7: present it from a Catholic theological point of view. And
Speaker 7: I have a master's in theology in Catholic theology, and
Speaker 7: Saint Thomas Quine is taught that the first rule of
Speaker 7: morality is do good, avoid evil, which I think most
Speaker 7: people who could agree with and then from there. The
Speaker 7: Church in the Catechism specifically defines the three components of
Speaker 7: a moral act, and all three components of the moral
Speaker 7: act must be good for the act and its to
Speaker 7: be good. Those three components are the ends, the means,
Speaker 7: which is usually the act itself, and then the circumstances,
Speaker 7: which usually includes intentions. So first I want to disagree
Speaker 7: with you on the intentions. Good intentions never make an
Speaker 7: evil act good, but bad intentions can make a good
Speaker 7: act bad. In other words, say making love to your wife,
Speaker 7: but if you have a bad intention of inflicting pain
Speaker 7: or humiliating her, then you know that makes the the
Speaker 7: act bad. So all three of those must be good
Speaker 7: for an act to be morally good. As I said,
Speaker 7: so something right, Okay?
Speaker 2: So so yeah, So let's take let's take the Catholic
Speaker 2: woman who about whom there is a show Broadway play
Speaker 2: about the Irena up the Updyke, the Catholic religious, Catholic
Speaker 2: Polish woman who saved a dozen or more Jews in
Speaker 2: hiding because she slept with a married Nazi.
Speaker 7: That's evil, Okay, that's what.
Speaker 2: Your thinking leads to the belief that she should have
Speaker 2: let them all go to their deaths rather than sleep
Speaker 2: with the Nazi.
Speaker 7: No, well, she's doing an evil act.
Speaker 2: No, she's not.
Speaker 7: Sleeping with someone who's not her husband is an evil act.
Speaker 7: It's it's for anication or alter.
Speaker 2: Right, So you would have told her not to do it?
Speaker 4: Yes, okay, all right?
Speaker 2: Well all I can say is now you know why
Speaker 2: I am making war on the notion that the ends
Speaker 2: never justify the means. It leads to that that sort
Speaker 2: of thinking. I think the vast majority of Catholic scholars
Speaker 2: would not say that she she committed an evil, that
Speaker 2: it was a net good, by the way, and it's
Speaker 2: worth asking your priest about her. Irena Updyke, you're listening
Speaker 2: to the Dennis Prager Show.
Speaker 4: My name is Dan Oliver. I'm calling from Rogers, Minnesota,
Speaker 4: the suburb just outside in Minneapolis, and I just wanted
Speaker 4: to thank Dennis for the wisdom, the rational way of
Speaker 4: looking at things that's been an instrumental in my life.
Speaker 4: I started listening to Dennis about fifteen years ago, and
Speaker 4: oddly I was praying for peace of mind and wisdom,
Speaker 4: and you were introduced. And my life is not a utopia,
Speaker 4: but it has been improved, and I appreciate that so
Speaker 4: much of it has to do with Dennis Prager, So
Speaker 4: thank you. Dennis. If you're listening to this, please know
Speaker 4: you have made a huge difference in this person's life
Speaker 4: and it's cascaded into others that are close to me.
Speaker 4: Love you, take care, and thanks again.
Speaker 1: Are you enjoying timeless wisdom? We'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Cal eight seven seven two three seventy seven seventy six
Speaker 1: and Labor Review. Share your thoughts or just even an
Speaker 1: encouraging word for Dennis. Your voicemail might just make it
Speaker 1: on the show. That's eight seven seven two four three
Speaker 1: seventy seven seventy six. That's eight seven seven two four
Speaker 1: three triple seven six. Thanks for listening and for your support.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Dennis Praeger Show coming to you
Speaker 2: in Hindi with a simultaneous translation made to sound as
Speaker 2: if it's my voice. That's how simultaneous and excellent technology
Speaker 2: has become. Hello, my friends, it's the Ultimate Issues Hour.
Speaker 2: And I just mentioned to wats's name, uh that I
Speaker 2: don't think I ever chose a less a more contentious
Speaker 2: subject for the Ultimate Issues Hour than this one. I
Speaker 2: am convinced that it equally challenges an annoise, though I
Speaker 2: never race things to annoy challenge. Yes, not a noy
Speaker 2: right and left, religious and secular, and it'll probably be
Speaker 2: worth a second visit. I'll look at your mail, and
Speaker 2: I'm getting your calls of course now. And it is
Speaker 2: my dispute, my disputing the cliche that the ends never
Speaker 2: justify the means. Half the time they do. I use
Speaker 2: the atom bomb over Hiroshima. But this one is a
Speaker 2: really good one for at least for those of you
Speaker 2: who believe, well most of us believe, but anyway, the
Speaker 2: sinfulness of sleeping with a married man, or those who
Speaker 2: believe in the sinfulness of sleeping non maritally. This Catholic woman,
Speaker 2: who is a saint to in my view, who saved
Speaker 2: I don't remember the number. By the way, there is
Speaker 2: a magnificent to play. I was at the opening on Broadway.
Speaker 2: Irena is vow. You should all see it, those of
Speaker 2: you in the New York area and those of you
Speaker 2: visiting New York as tourists. It's magnificent. It will move
Speaker 2: you deeply anyway. It is the true story of this
Speaker 2: then very young Catholic woman who slept with a Nazi,
Speaker 2: a married Nazi, as it happens, in order to save
Speaker 2: twelve Jews. I think it was twelve. It might have
Speaker 2: been more who lived underneath that man's cellar. He would
Speaker 2: have exposed them and they would have all gone to
Speaker 2: a Nazi death camp. The vast majority of US thinks
Speaker 2: that she was simply heroic, religious or not religious for
Speaker 2: doing what she did. But if you think that the
Speaker 2: ends never justify the means, the ends here saving twelve
Speaker 2: innocent lives, the means sleeping with the Nazi non maritally
Speaker 2: and adulterously because he's married, well then you are consistent.
Speaker 2: The ends never justify the means. Saving innocent lives from
Speaker 2: torture is deaths. Isn't worth sleeping with a man you
Speaker 2: shouldn't be sleeping with, And indeed, my last caller believe
Speaker 2: that it's it's very much worth rethinking for those of
Speaker 2: you who have bought this cliche. Okay, one eighth, Well,
Speaker 2: I don't need to give you the number. Let's go
Speaker 2: to Let's go to Long Beach, California. Jerry, Hello, Jerry, Dennis.
Speaker 6: Prager, Hey Dennis, how are you doing?
Speaker 2: Okay? Thanks?
Speaker 6: My scenario has to do whether the act or means
Speaker 6: is intrinsically evil, And I want to know how this
Speaker 6: differs from Also, you know, your statement differs from utilitarianism.
Speaker 6: But let's say, given this scenario, torturing a three year
Speaker 6: old child would be intrinsically evil. But if let's say
Speaker 6: we'd did that in order to torture the three year
Speaker 6: old child of a terrorist in order to get him
Speaker 6: to talk, in order to save ten thousand lives. I
Speaker 6: largely agree with what you say, but we have to
Speaker 6: look at.
Speaker 2: Whether it be Jerry, the very fact that you're asking
Speaker 2: it is my point. I am against it, But the
Speaker 2: very fact that it is even debatable proves my point
Speaker 2: that we know the morality of the means most of
Speaker 2: the time, I mean always extreme examples do not reflect
Speaker 2: necessarily on a generalization. But Jerry, the very fact that
Speaker 2: you pose this question proves my point that you are
Speaker 2: that all of us recoil at the idea of torturing
Speaker 2: a three year old. Then you add these ends of
Speaker 2: saving ten thousand lives because the father of the three
Speaker 2: year old will talk. I mean, you know, look what
Speaker 2: about how about murdering a child? Do you know that
Speaker 2: There were Jews in the Holocaust who had to stifle
Speaker 2: a child's cries so that it wouldn't give a way
Speaker 2: the hiding area of a fifty of them. Is killing
Speaker 2: a baby wrong? Of course, killing a baby is wrong.
Speaker 2: Did the mother who killed her baby to sacrifice her
Speaker 2: baby to save the fifty lives? Did she do wrong?
Speaker 2: I don't think so. All I'm saying, folks, is that
Speaker 2: simple moral cliches the ends never justify the meat. It's
Speaker 2: just not true. All of life is an ends. Is
Speaker 2: it right to hit a child only if the ends
Speaker 2: are a proper a proper discipline, and it's done in
Speaker 2: a certain way. I mean, unless you believe it is. Look,
Speaker 2: I never hit my kids or slap them or what
Speaker 2: I've spanked them, whatever the word is. I'm not sure
Speaker 2: I was right. By the way talk about an issue,
Speaker 2: people ask Waring, you've changed your mind. I've changed my
Speaker 2: mind on this issue. I believe that done properly. I've
Speaker 2: spoken to so many people who got spankings or or
Speaker 2: the parent use their belt or whatever it is. And
Speaker 2: as awful as it sounds, these people turn out to
Speaker 2: be very wonderful. And most of the wonderful adults. I
Speaker 2: know this was done to them at some point when
Speaker 2: they were a kid. Now does it justify always? Of
Speaker 2: course not, of course not, but sometimes That's all My
Speaker 2: point is, as soon as you say sometimes the ends
Speaker 2: justify the means, drop the cliche. They don't always justify
Speaker 2: the means, of course not, but often they do. That's
Speaker 2: all I'm saying. So just drop this notion that the
Speaker 2: the the ends never justify the means. It was raised
Speaker 2: in the editorial of the Los Angeles Times condemning the
Speaker 2: removal of the of the Honduran would be dictator Zeliah,
Speaker 2: and I said, no, even if you was a would
Speaker 2: be dictator at the ends, don't don't justify the means
Speaker 2: while with the means. The Supreme Court of Honduras ordered
Speaker 2: ordered this that the man be removed from power. All right,
Speaker 2: final segment coming up, and happily receive your emails. This
Speaker 2: is exactly the sort of reason people subscribe to this
Speaker 2: show at pragueer Topia seven dollars a month.
Speaker 1: This episode of Timeless Wisdom. We'll continue right after this.
Speaker 1: Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless wisdom. You
Speaker 1: found the reason to live on and not to die
Speaker 1: you were lucky Man Bullis scans, don't do it Tens
Speaker 1: and Sten using Steve Moltjoy. If you've gotten the secret,
Speaker 1: just time down the bullets tale.
Speaker 2: Man, Lucky, Hi everybody. Final segment of this edition. Could
Speaker 2: I have any caller who agreed with me the least
Speaker 2: that I took? Recall? But I have faith in my
Speaker 2: audience that common sense which God gave us, And it
Speaker 2: always disturbs me in my own religion or any other religion,
Speaker 2: when people make statements in the name of their religion
Speaker 2: that just so violate common sense. And it's disturbing because
Speaker 2: I look to Jews and Christians as a as a
Speaker 2: as a final hope here for the breakdown of the
Speaker 2: moral compass of humanity, and if and if there starts
Speaker 2: to break, it's hard to know where to look, isn't it.
Speaker 2: And I have been discussing the issue of the cliche
Speaker 2: that the ends don't justify the means. It is true
Speaker 2: in some cases. I began with one. You want to
Speaker 2: get rid of the cockroaches in your house, you don't
Speaker 2: use the means of a bazukah Okay, purposely picked a
Speaker 2: simple absurd one. You want to get terrorists in a house.
Speaker 2: You may have to destroy the house with a Bazuka's
Speaker 2: it's unfortunate. But then then you may have to man
Speaker 2: talked about torturing the three year old daughter of a
Speaker 2: or a son of a terrorist. A true terrorist would
Speaker 2: just think that the child is going to be a martyr.
Speaker 2: WOU wouldn't say a word anyway. I mean, it's its
Speaker 2: academic as it turns out so and in general, of
Speaker 2: course you don't do such a thing. But it is
Speaker 2: the ends that make that make us capable of judging
Speaker 2: the means. In most cases, that's just the way it is,
Speaker 2: whether it's the Adam Baum over Hiroshima, or it was
Speaker 2: Arena Updike sleeping within the married Nazi to save the
Speaker 2: twelve Jews. So that's that's the opportunity one has. This
Speaker 2: is a great learning thing. By the way, if you
Speaker 2: want to talk to your your kids about great moral issues,
Speaker 2: it's whether you agree with me or not. There's a
Speaker 2: great example why people do go to Pragatopia, which is
Speaker 2: to subscribe to this show for the grand total of
Speaker 2: seven dollars a month. You also get every every day
Speaker 2: Alan's articles that he sends to me with his comments.
Speaker 2: I think that's worth more than seven alone, and that
Speaker 2: is available at You can download it and it's yours
Speaker 2: any time you want share it with anybody you want
Speaker 2: at the Dennis Prager dot com or at Prager Radio
Speaker 2: dot com. I look forward to your emails. Thank you
Speaker 2: for listening. This is Dennis Prager.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.
Speaker 2: Today, I want to talk to you about women and depression.
Speaker 2: And there are many aspects to this. This is not
Speaker 2: the only time on the Male Female Hour that I
Speaker 2: will discuss it, and by the way, of course, you
Speaker 2: can have a show on men and depression, but from
Speaker 2: the perspective that I am going to deal with it today,
Speaker 2: I'm specifying women, not because only women get depressed, that
Speaker 2: is not the case, of course, but because I want
Speaker 2: to give specific reasons for female depression that you don't
Speaker 2: normally hear about.
Speaker 1: Join us tomorrow to hear more on Timeless Wisdom with
Speaker 1: Dennis Prager. Visit Dennispragger dot com for thousands of hours
Speaker 1: of Dennis's LECTUREUS courses and classic radio programs. To purchase
Speaker 1: Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles. We want to take just a
Speaker 1: second to thank the team at Life Audio for their
Speaker 1: partnership with us on the podcast. Go to lifeaudio dot
Speaker 1: com to find dozens of other faith centered podcasts and
Speaker 1: their network, including shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.