3 ms·

Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Most people don't jump f

by pdkl95 8y ago

Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Most people don't jump from acting ethically to accepting work on that is obviously problematic. What actually happens is a long series of small, trivial compromises and other deviations that eventually become normalized[1]. Humans make mistakes; it isn't possible to live the "ideal monk" life. The real question is how small problems are handled? Compromising when the problem isn't a "big enough" ethical problem inevitably[2] pushes that boundary back in a cycle of normalized small, easily avoided deviances. Instead, if a hard line is taken against small problems when they are still small, a lot of larger problems can be avoided. [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_and_the_normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Not seeing the distinction here. If you're an idealist the way hueving indicated and don't live as a monk, you're necessarily compromising on your values every day. And not on trivial or inconsequential things either, since you could easily donate to a variety of non-trivial causes. What you're suggesting just sounds like reflexive goalpost-moving: the compromises I make are okay, the compromises others make are not.
- extralego 8y ago
  Morals never serve individually. They serve to facilitate a social environment that favors a group to effectively work as a team. The reality of this is sure to be rife with contradictions, especially at individual scale, but somehow they effort is not contradictory if we consider the madness of a society erased of it’s morals. The challenge of this contradiction can be overcome through conviction and forgiveness alone. It’s essentially the scientific argument for religion. I would like to think nobody would say this is easy, but many people do say it’s easy. It’s not. It’s nearly impossible, but humans have done it time and time again.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    What kicked off this whole chain was a discussion on whether a particular individual's decision was moral or not. "This ideology is impractical/contradictory but still effective in a group" is a potential valid point to make in another context, but irrelevant to what we were specifically discussing here.

by pdkl95 8y ago

TulliusCicero 8y ago

> Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Not seeing the distinction here. If you're an idealist the way hueving indicated and don't live as a monk, you're necessarily compromising on your values every day. And not on trivial or inconsequential things either, since you could easily donate to a variety of non-trivial causes. What you're suggesting just sounds like reflexive goalpost-moving: the compromises I make are okay, the compromises others make are not.

extralego 8y ago
Morals never serve individually. They serve to facilitate a social environment that favors a group to effectively work as a team. The reality of this is sure to be rife with contradictions, especially at individual scale, but somehow they effort is not contradictory if we consider the madness of a society erased of it’s morals. The challenge of this contradiction can be overcome through conviction and forgiveness alone. It’s essentially the scientific argument for religion. I would like to think nobody would say this is easy, but many people do say it’s easy. It’s not. It’s nearly impossible, but humans have done it time and time again.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  What kicked off this whole chain was a discussion on whether a particular individual's decision was moral or not. "This ideology is impractical/contradictory but still effective in a group" is a potential valid point to make in another context, but irrelevant to what we were specifically discussing here.