> We have to make these decisions all the time whenever we vote or suggest perspectives to influence friends and acquaintances about one public policy or anothe

> We have to make these decisions all the time whenever we vote or suggest perspectives to influence friends and acquaintances about one public policy or another. If we don't make the decisions, someone else will, and it matters for things like how we respond to acts of terrorism, road safety laws, funding for the treatment of diseases, and so on. And ignoring the moral weightiness of the decisions doesn't remove the consequences or our responsibility for ourselves as a society. You make a good point. It is (more often than not) better to make the tough decisions as opposed to passively going with someone else's choice or not taking a position at all. > He uses some examples of Buddhists who choose to devote their lives to helping other people--they avoid experiencing empathic attachment because it burns them out, which would defeat their entire purpose. I see where the author comes from with this statement, and I think I better understand his stance. I reacted more emotionally than I should have to this text and threw out his ideas altogether. However, I still remain wary of its benefits to larger society as opposed to certain circumstances.