Quote:
So are you saying you should sometimes not stand up for what is right? Not that it's sometimes dangerous, or unpleasant, but that sometimes standing up for what is right is not what you should do?
Exactly what I'm saying. There are times when the risk/result/benefit to society/whatever don't ally with the "righteousness" of the situation. Again, we can play the extreme example game if you want, but if you say that you will ALWAYS no matter what the circumstances are do what you deem "right", then you are following an ideal to an extreme where everything is black and white and that view doesn't match up with reality. That's the line of thinking I was pointing to with my weak war example. It comes to mind just because it's everywhere and obvious, and I'm not aligning your views to it at all, but this type of extreme idealism is demonstrated perfectly by the Iraq war and the ideal of spreading democracy and "freedom". Again, I don't want to get onto that sidetrack, but I'm using that just as an example of how idealistic ideology can lead you to a futile dangerous ending.
I get your point, that indeed we should strive to stand up for what is right despite the fact that we may be hurt by it in one way or another because the overall benefits to society are greater than that risk. I just don't agree with an idea such as that one should try and take down a guy pointing a gun in a shopkeepers face while he is stealing a pack of gum, and you are unarmed. Because that is exactly what you seem to be advocating. Or did I miss the part where you said there IS a gray area?
Previous Topic
Index
