End or Means?

John: Hey, Socrates, wait up!

Socrates: Eh? Oh hello, John.

John: (Out of breath) Hi, Socrates. Could I join you on your walk?

Socrates: Certainly. You did not have to run so fast to catch me, you know. I like to walk slowly. This is a beautiful place.

John: Yes. Sometimes I realize that when I bother to come outside and walk. These trees are magnificent. So, what's on your mind?

Socrates: Nothing at present; I'm simply enjoying myself. Still, that could change quickly. You know how I am always concerned about philosophical inquiry, the search for truth.

John: Do you mind if I ask you a question?

Socrates: No. Ask.

John: One of my teachers once made the claim that a means is more important than an end.

Socrates: Really? On what did your teacher base this claim?

John: She told us the story of three hundred Chinese students that were shot for their Christian faith. She said that their means was more important than their end. I disagreed with her when she said this, and I thought--and still think--that she was wrong, but I'm not sure how to refute her. I know she's not in deliberate error--she's too honest for that. But what's wrong with her argument?

Socrates: You said that this story is the reason why she believes that a means is more important than an end?

John: Yes, pretty much.

Socrates: That is a rather strange reason to come to such a conclusion, and I find fault with it. You, as a Christian, would see through it clearly.

John: Why?

Socrates: You tell me. What was the Chinese student's end?

John: Heaven.

Socrates: And what was their means of attaining it?

John: Death by martyrdom.

Socrates: Now, is heaven infinitely important than all their deaths put together, or not?

John: It is.

Socrates: Then does it not follow that the end--at least in this case--is far more important than the means?

John: Yes.

Socrates: So, we have established that in at least one case the end is more important than the means. Do you think we should inquire further into the matter to see whether ends are always more important than means?

John: Sure.

Socrates: When you are on a journey, which do you care more about, the road, or your destination?

John: My destination.

Socrates: Why? Is it because the destination is the place in which you want to be, while the road only serves to get you there?

John: Yeah, that seems to be it.

Socrates: The road is your means, while the destination is your end; is that so?

John: Yes.

Socrates: Therefore, the end is more important than the means?

John: Yes.

Socrates: Let us try another example. Suppose that you decide to devote yourself to extensive exercise. What is your end in that case?

John: To become strong, I guess.

Socrates: And is this end enjoyable and profitable when it is attained?

John: Yes.

Socrates: But in order to become strong, you must drill and drill and drill, even when it is painful. Would you continue to do this unless you had your goal in mind, to become strong?

John: I don't think so.

Socrates: So this pain you experience, is it more important than the strength and endurance that come after it?

John: No. It is less important.

Socrates: So, once again the end is more important than the means. Do you think that this is because of the nature of ends and means?

John: Yes.

Socrates: Well then, if you don't object, we will look at the definitions of both those terms. Is an end the goal toward which any action is directed?

John: Yes.

Socrates: And what is a means? Is it that which is used or done in order to attain an end?

John: It is.

Socrates: Now, does the goal toward which any action is directed exist for its own sake, or for the sake of something else?

John: For it's own sake.

Socrates: What about a means? Does it exist for its own sake, or for the sake of something else?

John: For the sake of something else, for the end.

Socrates: Is that which exists for its own sake more important than that which exists for something else?

John: Yes.

Socrates: Does it not follow, therefore, that an end is more important than a means, since it exists for its own sake, and what exists for its own sake is more important than what exists for something else?

John: Yes.

Socrates: So we have proved this to be true, and we have simultaneously reached the end of our walk, since we have reached your home--unless you wish to continue.

John: Later, Socrates. We might want to talk next time about means and ends and what else follows from them. Maybe we could even explore morality using the definitions you just made.
 

Wanted: Alternate Definition of Marriage

            There's one question that I would like someone to answer for me, please. It's not a rhetorical question, it's quite serious.
            In our country, a lot of people have been arguing about whether we should legalize same-sex "marriage", but I don't know yet whether a single one of them has ever asked this simple question: "what is marriage anyway?" That's the question I want answered. How do the homosexuals and their supporters define marriage?
            Whether gay "marriage" advocates admit it or not, the definition of marriage is important. In fact, it's crucial. It may mean the difference between life and death--literally. In one of my earlier  articles, I dealt with a definition of marriage which appeared bad enough at first glance, but which, upon closer inspection, was clearly more dangerous than I had ever thought. It was dangerous because it labelled as marriage every sexual activity whatever (except for child abuse and rape) as long as it was legal. Since it allowed for so much, it rendered the meaning of the word "marriage" virtually meaningless.
            If homosexuals have no definition of marriage at all (and I don't know if that's not so), then they are no better off than the people who hold meaningless definitions of marriage. An undefined term can mean whatever the people who use it want it to mean.
            So I request for someone who knows the homosexual's definition of marriage to please step forward and propose it so that we can see whether it holds any water. If people are going to argue about marriage at all, shouldn't they first of all know what on earth they're talking about?