I wish I knew the answer
A sham. That's how one achieves. You observe it, you oppose it, yet you cannot do anything about it. A lie told for the common good, a shenanigan where society in general is benefited (at the cost of an innocent) is often considered an acceptable norm. But is it, actually? You observe something terrible going on. You want to stop it, yet you don't. Why?
What is the thin line between a mass benefit, or a great personal individual loss? Which is better, improving the life of 1 ethical person, or n unethical people? Is there a value for n which determines a decision? Should this kind of dilemma happen at all?
Publicly calling themselves a moral outfit, yet digging into trenches of immorality to achieve their ends. Why do we put up with it? Why is it that we still empathize with the beneficiaries of such an act, which we know we ourselves are likely to be on the opposite side of? Why do we hesitate to pull the trigger, to let outrage flow? What holds us back?
I just wish I had some answers...
The thinking of a person is highly unstable and conviction of an unshakable variety is rarely achieved and those achieving it are called stubborn or rigid.Ethical and unethical themselves are relative concepts and not well defined so it is natural that beliefs of a person also have that kind of dynamism.
ReplyDeleteThe crime on a personal level is doing or putting up with somethin which on a personal level you are against.Again,that is a matter of personal courage and at times judiciousness of the decision with regards to repercussions on urself.
In the end sab moh maaya hai,only crime is not doing wat makes u happy.(Note:If you sacrifice something; you do it because that is supposed to make you internally happy.)
And finally,I have put a lot of garbage which might not make sense to me as well but so be it.
Hehe thankfully the comment did not bcom as large as the article itselh......
ReplyDelete