This has me pondering quite a few things. Every one has heard of the idea that "there is no such thing as a self-less act" - or somthing along those lines.
But should ulterior motives be enough to negate someone's good actions?
Take for example, Al Gore's new idea about Live Earth... (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-15-2007/0004528720&EDATE=)
Now, the Earth's climate in crisis is a serious issue. It's something that, regardless of whether or not it's mankind's fault or just a natural cycle, needs to have attention brought to it. And doesn't this idea bring attention to it?
Concerts similar to this have worked to bring about funds and attention to several issues in the past. And yet, each time, the motives of these people get questioned and second guessed. Artists get accused of doing so just for the publicity; politicians are accused of being onboard just to earn a few more votes.
Even if these allegations are true, who really cares? Aren't they also succeeding in bringing attention to these worthy issues?
Now, I do realize that the ends doesn't always justify the means. But should the means always undermine the ends?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
