Is it the result that matters, or the effects of the process?

I am going to use your third party example even though it can be applied to life, each vote is a statement, anytime you make a statement, you are exercising free will. Free will is what is important to a free world, and a free life. Many times in my life have I heard, "that is the way it has always been done, so that must be the best way to do it." I am afraid that I have sold out to the man and I just go do it the way it has been done before, it is easier that way and also it will hold your position. I vote democrat for that reason, what I hope to accomplish is to work within a party to better that party rather then to "waste" my vote for a person that cannot possible win. This is subject to change if somebody comes along and is better then the norm, more aligns with my philosophy, and has a hint of being viable.

Unfortunately, it's the result that matters to most.

In our society today most people cannot see or think beyond their current situation and what benefits they will receive in the short term. They cannot or chose not to see the possible ramifications of their 'vote' 10, 20, 40 years from now.

But the effects of the process itself is more important in the long run. Look back to the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot scared the begeezus out of both political parties (though neither will admit it) and garnered 2 out of every 10 votes. The two main party candidates were essentially a statistically even. Not that he would have won the election at that time, but he forced the main party candidates to debate on issues they probably would rather not have. Look back to the 1980 Presidential election, President Carter refused to participate in debates if the 'third-party' candidate participated. Why? Maybe there were issues that he didn't want to debate.

So, possibly, that by voting for a 'third-party' candidate now would force the extremists ( either far left or far right) into a more isolated and irrelevant political positions and 'introduce' more viewpoints and ideas.

But a 'third-party' candidate will never be a viable alternative until campaign finance is reformed. And this will never happen because both main stream parties would lose the influence, power, and control over the people that they now enjoy.

And we also have to remember that a majority of voters today struggle to understand a majority of the issues that we are faced with. Most only know what they are told by their prefered news organisation or political party and are too lazy to seek out and attempt to understand other viewpoints. The only issues important to them are the issues that they are told are important to them or that affect their immediate situation.

In a more general sense the side effects of the process almost always have a benefit.

To cite a personal example, a friend and I were having a political discussion/ debate (we tend to have similar political views) over a few days and I took up a stance that I felt could not be supported.(devils advocate) Throughout the discussion I made every effort to defend the stance, did some research of the opposing facts but did ultimately fail. The success came in the many things we both learned that we were unaware of before and that we now could better understand the thought process of someone who would defend that viewpoint.

Edit:

It has occured to me a great example is participation in this Q&A forum. I know it will not succeed to try to convice the extremes that there are other viable viewpoints out there, but the process of research and communication can only make me a better and more knowledgable person. Also someone with a more open mind may learn something.

Personally, I would support a third party candidate or a less popular party candidate(which is more likely). I believe that does produce change and provides a platform of new ideas. That said, if that person has not gathered enough support by election time, I will actually cast my vote for the "next best". For instance, I don't blame Nader supporters for supporting his campaign but I would have chosen to vote for Gore when it came to the wire. I am worried to see only the top two candidates in the news-that's not good for true discussion. We already have a problem in our election system in that only the very wealthy can run. We should correct that but I doubt we have the will, as a whole.

Results only matter to those that have a preconceived notion of what they are trying to achieve. A truly open-minded individual will learn more from the "effects of the process" as you put it, than any result (whether it is the expected one or not.)

Two things happen with results. Achieving an expected result only reinforces a theory (sometimes that theory is flawed, but because of the desire to prove a point, data is interpreted improperly or overlooked.) Achieving a different result than intended will cause someone to rethink their theory (but probably not to the extent had they paid more attention to the process, or worse they try even harder to prove the theory with insanity [continuously doing the same thing and expecting a different result.])

However, if one pays the most attention to the effects of each step in the process of achieving a result, it could become quite clear that something will either work or is flawed long before the result is ever obtained.

As i read your question, the thought that comes to my mind is this ... Does existing contribute to the evolution of man even if the existence is something less than remarkable? I think the simple answer is yes, ones actions matter even if they do not immediately effect anything or anyone. The voting example is the one that is sexy and identifiable, but it could be and often is smaller. The movie "Pay it Forward" was a great example of this theory...doing something because it is right and good, even if it is hard and it seems not to matter and it seems to change nothing.

In the criminal justice arena, this theory is especially important. The lay audience seems to ignore the importance of the procedure as well as the result. Who cares that the cop is racist and has expressed racist sentiment if he finds the key piece of evidence? I do, because someone who can hold prejudice against one based specifically on the person's race will miss the information that one should not ignore in a competent investigation. Who cares if they beat the kid up to get a confession? I do because the confession is WORTHLESS if the kid only said what they wanted to hear to get them off of his back. The string of wrongful convictions based on false confessions is proof of this.

The process matters more than the result. The result defines what we did. The procedure defines who we are, and who we are is more important than what we did.

>>I'm talking about whether it's sometimes useful to attempt something, even if you know you cannot succeed, because of the side-effects produced by the attempt.<<

I'm an artist. You just basically described 3/4's of my life's work. Even unsuccessful attempts lead to new paths and possibilities not thought of before. It's always frustrating but 99% of the time it is always worth it. I find that to be true in life too. The inventor and founder of Honda motors tried over 7 times to come up with a product that would be successful on the market. He failed many times in the process. Had he given up after the first failed result, we would have never seen Honda motors. Most successful businesses start this way. I think one must be kind of zen-like in their approach to things and to life.

I think that if no one ever tried to achieve an unattainable goal they would never achieve an attainable one. How many scientists worked on a polio vaccine before dr. Salk found a viable one? Even though he gets credit for the discovery, The work of the ones that tried and failed before him are no less important. If Rosa Parks hadn't decided to take her stand on that bus would we know Dr. King had a dream? Maybe, maybe not. How about Masada? Thermopolis? the Alamo?Dunkirk? Some events, which may seem quite futile at the time, set the stage for later successes that would be fruitless without the effort of the ones who went before. Problems which seem insurmountable right now will be solved, not by the first person to work on it, but the last.

The question is interesting just how you wrote it in the first line.

"the effects of the process" - it makes me think of STARGATE or BEAM ME UP SCOTTY TYPE TRANSPORTERS, like say those things were out there but they caused side effects when you went thru such a process, would that matter? Well if you came out the other side MUTATED to a degree that was "UNSUITABLE" well that may matter, eh?

----

As far as attempting something, well you have to ask "what is the attempt" and the reason?

If "jeffery-goines" is going to release the monkies from the zoo/lab does he have a place for them to go, or they going to RUN ALL OVER THE PLACE and get run down by tractor trailors? If there is a safe transporter method even if it was not perfected and it did cause a SLIGHT MUTATION do you think a mouse or a COW or any other creature would rather "take that ride out" and deal with the slight mutation, rather than face the horrible EXPERIMENTATION, death or continued/on-going RAPING?

If it was you who was LOCKED DOWN or being raped or about to be murdered would you rather take the "transporter ride out" ? or would you rather FACE RAPE and POTENTIAL DEATH?

If you're goal oriented the ends justify the means.

But, you're not talking about that. You are asking if the journey is the goal, in and of itself.

Some say, "Its the journey not the destination" which is what I suspect you are alluding to.

Thats fine, if you want to stop and smell the flowers along the way, and don't really care about where you're going.

Unlike the two people you mentioned in your question, there are many who have only the destination, as their goal. If these goal seekers win out over the other travellers, then their attempts would have been futile.

The effects of the process have an end result maybe not the desire one but it could be consider as a step forward in a long path.

The concept can be applied to everything you are not talking about and more like civil rights, people disobedience, war, terrorism or a third party in this case.