So, in other words, as one's personal interest in an issue rises, the less the concern with the ethics involved. In addition, the closer one is to the scene of a conflict, the lower the concern of the ethics involved. In my view, ethics should be a constant.
2. The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgement.
So, it looks like according to Alinsky, two people could accomplish the same end using the same means, but if their political positions are opposite, judgement may be passed on only the incongruent person. This looks like a classic double standard.
3. In war, the end justifies almost any means.
So no one may pass judgment on Bill Ayers for blowing up a police station back in the sixties because apparently, back then, it needed to be done. Today, he's a retired professor from the University of Illinois at Chicago.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice verca.
This one says that the more means you have available, the more you can afford to worry about ethics. Technically, you could choose the most ethical means.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
This employs the application of a survival instinct in a non life threatening encounter. In other words, if a person seems to be losing an engagement, any means may be used with no concerns of morality or ethics with the idea that there was no choice. Whereas, if one is finding themself victorious, more concern of morality or ethics may be afforded to avoid criticizism or end up losing, after all, to ridicule. This is seen sometimes in sports when one team defeats the other so badly and by so many points that criticizers will complain that it was unnecessary to accrue that many points to win and that the team could've moderated...please.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.