5 ms·

I don't fully understand resigning on principal. Hopefully this argument is naive and someone can correct me, but why not stay and fight for what you believe in

I don't fully understand resigning on principal. Hopefully this argument is naive and someone can correct me, but why not stay and fight for what you believe in? I worry that leaving is like removing the last vestige of hope. If Blank acknowledged that his departure was because he would have a terrible time working with a bunch of baffoons and so he quits, I would be more sympathetic. But if he believes that his protest will somehow make things better, or that it's the right thing to do for the sake of the common good, I'm confused.

SkyMarshal 6y ago
There are a couple reasons: 1. Personal sanity: When the majority of the group becomes stacked with yes-men you disagree with on principle, then you have no way of stopping them from doing what they’re going to do. Fighting that is like tilting at windmills and can be emotionally exhausting. Humans have a finite supply of energy and focus, and wasting it in such situations is neither productive nor pleasant. Better to just leave and go devote your energy to positive and productive endeavors instead. 2. Avoid tacit endorsement: When you become the minority in any group where the majority starts doing things you disagree with, especially ethically, then it’s very difficult for you to publicly distance yourself from those decisions while remaining part of the group. The minority members usually get less air time, less media attention, less soapbox opportunity to voice dissenting opinions. The only way to distance yourself decisively and indisputably is to leave the group.
- leafmeal 6y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful reply. These are definitely good reasons for someone to resign. They're also reasons that benefit the resigner personally. I think that's a good thing, and people should take care of themselves, but it reinforces my suspicion that resigning in protest is self-serving, and not usually beneficial to the person's cause. Again, nothing wrong with being self-serving, unless the resigner tries to frame it some other way.
  - SkyMarshal 6y ago
    It occurs to me there are two more reasons, non-self-serving this time, why someone might resign in protest: 1. When someone both prominent and respected resigns, it's a big attention-getter with the media and public. Shines a spotlight on the situation. 2. It also allows the one resigning to go public with criticisms and alarms that may not be possible otherwise, once they're a private independent citizen again. Especially for example in the case of the military or executive branch of the government, where it may be difficult or impossible to criticize the organization or someone in your chain of command while remaining a part of it. Imagine for example if Colin Powell had resigned from the Bush Administration, instead of making a presentation on Iraq WMD at the UN. That might have averted the Iraq war. Career military like Powell don't publicly criticize or contradict their commanders (Bush in this case), but resigning is a way to do exactly that without doing it explicitly.
    - leafmeal 6y ago
      I agree with your first point. With the second one, I'm less convinced. Perhaps I'm being a pedantic here, but you can always refuse an order. There may be consequences (like being court martialed) which you can avoid by resigning, but then you're resigning to protect yourself. I wonder if refusing is ever a more effective option, but my suspicion is no...

SkyMarshal 6y ago

There are a couple reasons: 1. Personal sanity: When the majority of the group becomes stacked with yes-men you disagree with on principle, then you have no way of stopping them from doing what they’re going to do. Fighting that is like tilting at windmills and can be emotionally exhausting. Humans have a finite supply of energy and focus, and wasting it in such situations is neither productive nor pleasant. Better to just leave and go devote your energy to positive and productive endeavors instead. 2. Avoid tacit endorsement: When you become the minority in any group where the majority starts doing things you disagree with, especially ethically, then it’s very difficult for you to publicly distance yourself from those decisions while remaining part of the group. The minority members usually get less air time, less media attention, less soapbox opportunity to voice dissenting opinions. The only way to distance yourself decisively and indisputably is to leave the group.

leafmeal 6y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. These are definitely good reasons for someone to resign. They're also reasons that benefit the resigner personally. I think that's a good thing, and people should take care of themselves, but it reinforces my suspicion that resigning in protest is self-serving, and not usually beneficial to the person's cause. Again, nothing wrong with being self-serving, unless the resigner tries to frame it some other way.
- SkyMarshal 6y ago
  It occurs to me there are two more reasons, non-self-serving this time, why someone might resign in protest: 1. When someone both prominent and respected resigns, it's a big attention-getter with the media and public. Shines a spotlight on the situation. 2. It also allows the one resigning to go public with criticisms and alarms that may not be possible otherwise, once they're a private independent citizen again. Especially for example in the case of the military or executive branch of the government, where it may be difficult or impossible to criticize the organization or someone in your chain of command while remaining a part of it. Imagine for example if Colin Powell had resigned from the Bush Administration, instead of making a presentation on Iraq WMD at the UN. That might have averted the Iraq war. Career military like Powell don't publicly criticize or contradict their commanders (Bush in this case), but resigning is a way to do exactly that without doing it explicitly.
  - leafmeal 6y ago
    I agree with your first point. With the second one, I'm less convinced. Perhaps I'm being a pedantic here, but you can always refuse an order. There may be consequences (like being court martialed) which you can avoid by resigning, but then you're resigning to protect yourself. I wonder if refusing is ever a more effective option, but my suspicion is no...