Ah
Would you still act?
Sort:
mr-pawn100 wrote:
I would help out. For those of you that haven't read 1984(spoilers ahead) The whole thing about what Winston does is act out in small ways. There's typically not a way to truly bring down a corrupt system, and/or in my case, a person or group. But you can show small acts of defiance. That's truly the only thing you can do, and HAVE to do. I'm not a very religious person but I believe it's best put in dante's inferno l "The darkest places of hell are reserved for those who keep their neutrality in times of unrest" (I could be slightly wrong Abt. The quote but you get the idea)
That’s interesting because you’re basically saying the value of resistance isn’t always in winning — sometimes it’s just refusing to mentally submit to something wrong.
But then do small acts of defiance actually change systems, or do they mainly help people preserve their own conscience?
Well my belief is that it is about not necessarily about immediately getting rid of problems. Sometimes you need to do peaceful/silent protests and sometimes you need to shoot hitler (sorry that got dark) but to do something to preserve your own conscience I honestly veiw a little selfish. You should fight against something because It's wrong
mr-pawn100 wrote:
Well my belief is that it is about not necessarily about immediately getting rid of problems. Sometimes you need to do peaceful/silent protests and sometimes you need to shoot hitler (sorry that got dark) but to do something to preserve your own conscience I honestly veiw a little selfish. You should fight against something because It's wrong
That’s a strong point. But do you think there’s a limit where protecting the people close to you becomes more important than fighting what’s wrong?
Like, is there any situation where staying silent would be morally understandable to you?
If there are people at risk if you act out then it makes it a bit tougher and in that situation I would they to protect them unless I knew my act would show real results to positively impact the system and change it. Back to the shooting hitler point if someone were able to kill hitler and destroy the third Reich and nazism (or at least stop the nazi party from having power) then they are required to, even if it means them and their family/close people will be killed by the few remaining Nazis.
Honestly, your replies have probably been the most thought-out ones here. I like that you’re not treating morality as something simple or comfortable.
Your point about action only being justified when it has a real chance of changing something is interesting, because it turns the question from “Is this wrong?” into “Is sacrifice still worth it if it changes nothing?”
That’s a much harder question to answer.
First of all, it means a lot that you think my responses have been so well thought out and secondly, I would like to clarify that my belief is that you should act. If someone could get hurt for something that wasn't their fault though, then only act if it will actually help and make a real difference. Gtg
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I would help out. For those of you that haven't read 1984(spoilers ahead) The whole thing about what Winston does is act out in small ways. There's typically not a way to truly bring down a corrupt system, and/or in my case, a person or group. But you can show small acts of defiance. That's truly the only thing you can do, and HAVE to do. I'm not a very religious person but I believe it's best put in dante's inferno l "The darkest places of hell are reserved for those who keep their neutrality in times of unrest" (I could be slightly wrong Abt. The quote but you get the idea)