Means and ends are not really distinct. They can only be considered distinct as time-contiguous phases of a process.

People may ask "does the end justify the means?" This makes sense only in the perspective of compromise. In reality the question should be "is it right to choose a certain process - means and ends?" Compromise can involve either self-sacrifice, or the sacrifice of others. The sacrifice of others can mean unjust exploitations. Unjust exploitations involves anomalies to sociological integrity. Anomalies to integrity, if pandemic, can be suicidal for a species. What comes around goes around.

If we have $100 in our bank account from hard honest work, that is a very different end than having $100 in our bank account from theft. Confusing the two (and other variations between the two) is a type of anomaly to integrity that is treacherous for society. Richness in life is not having many 100's of dollars, it is having ends honest to means. Having $100 in our bank account from work at a profit-maximizing corporation will eventually be considered very different from having $100 in our bank account from working at a stewardly Aikido corporation.

Ends and means are the same. Fruition is sustainable - because its ends are means. Accumulation is not - because its ends are ends. The only exceptions are cyclical accumulation subcycles within larger fruition cycles. Accumulation should be compelled to justify itself by production of larger cycles of fruition - or the accumulation should be forfeited (not a new theory, see: Silvio Gesell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell).

Perhaps even more importantly, accumulated and centralized power is much weaker than diffused and applied power - and an organization can establish either kind of power.

AikidoActivism.xwiki.com Web Home. Content subject to the Aikido Copyright.