4 ms·

Either people have and live by principles or they don't. Part of our division is these sides you speak of, instructing their followers what to believe about ind

Either people have and live by principles or they don't. Part of our division is these sides you speak of, instructing their followers what to believe about individual topics.

majormajor 5y ago
The world is sadly more complicated than that. Often people's principles contradict each other, especially when it comes to bad actors. Consider the person with a principle of non-violence who is still willing to fight to defend their family. Are they a hypocrite?
- airstrike 5y ago
  "Defending" assumes an attacker, which is the one breaking the principle of non-violence. So no, you're not a hypocrite to defend yourself if you believe in non-violence Said differently, the belief in non-violence can be stated as "I believe in pursuing non-violent means in absolutely every situation except for those in which another actor acts violently toward me"
  - couchand 5y ago
    The GP's point about internal contradiction remains regardless of the contortions you choose to apply to your definition of "non-violence".
bcrosby95 5y ago
Most atrocities in the world are committed by principled people. If they didn't have them they wouldn't care enough to commit them.
- tdfx 5y ago
  I think you're right and I can only assumed you've been downvoted because people didn't like your use of the word "principled" (which we usually reserve for good people) being used to describe idealogical absolutists.
- base698 5y ago
  Everyone quoted this in regards to theocracies. It's clearly a way more abstract principle. > Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Either people have and live by principles or they don't. Part of our division is these sides you speak of, instructing their followers what to believe about individual topics.

majormajor 5y ago

The world is sadly more complicated than that. Often people's principles contradict each other, especially when it comes to bad actors. Consider the person with a principle of non-violence who is still willing to fight to defend their family. Are they a hypocrite?

airstrike 5y ago
"Defending" assumes an attacker, which is the one breaking the principle of non-violence. So no, you're not a hypocrite to defend yourself if you believe in non-violence Said differently, the belief in non-violence can be stated as "I believe in pursuing non-violent means in absolutely every situation except for those in which another actor acts violently toward me"
- couchand 5y ago
  The GP's point about internal contradiction remains regardless of the contortions you choose to apply to your definition of "non-violence".

bcrosby95 5y ago

Most atrocities in the world are committed by principled people. If they didn't have them they wouldn't care enough to commit them.

tdfx 5y ago
I think you're right and I can only assumed you've been downvoted because people didn't like your use of the word "principled" (which we usually reserve for good people) being used to describe idealogical absolutists.
base698 5y ago
Everyone quoted this in regards to theocracies. It's clearly a way more abstract principle. > Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.