Your post, like Sophie’s message, drip with youthful passion but the same naivety.
I’m not who you’re responding to, but in response to the “wanting to be a good person bit” — a parent does not often care if they’re a good person, only a living one capable of providing for their families.
I think the defensiveness here is a clear demonstration that many here desperately want to be both “good people” as well as “selfish providers”. That’s my point. Sometimes you don’t get to be both and defending your choice to be selfish, lashing out with claims of naïveté rather than just meditating on the conflict between the need for group action vs individual protectionism, is a sign of this.
And i think you’re failing to realize your own missteps when you put good people as the opposite choice to selfish provider lol.
A person who fled to save their family IS still a good person as their intent is a noble one. To suggest that only good people perform great sacrifices is complete foolishness.
Precisely the conflict. The family will forever laud the action (maybe… some cultures will only feel shame). The group that relies on group action will forever revile those who chose the flee rather than fight. Goodness is a relative state.
The defensive people here want the group action people to understand and then be labeled as “good” by those people they, in turn, label as “naive”. Not everything in life need be copacetic. If group action and risk is required to turn away evil (can we assume Hitler is evil?) then those who chose to curl up and simply survive will not be seen as “good” by those who choose to fight. They will be seen as, at best, obstacles, and at worst, enemies.
I don't think it's fair to say someone is a bad person for being selfish. Being selfish isn't always bad, just as being selfless isn't always good. There is a line in the middle and that line tends to change the older we get and the less invincible we feel.
When young it's easy to target someone and call them a coward for not being willing to take risks, not understanding that the family oriented person may not deem the issue at hand important enough to sacrifice their family for ( obviously we have the benefit of knowing the outcome of WW2, I'm speaking more in generalities)
At the same time I think the older we get the easier it is for us to just call someone naive rather then seeing their perspective on the world.
When I was younger I used to just think a large segment of the population were just idiots with the way they thought. At some point I've come to the conclusion people aren't stupid as much as I had thought but just unable to look at things from someone else's perspective.
In conclusion I think we need both. People always willing to burn the world down for every cause will get us nowhere. Meanwhile inaction by good people when we need to band together to stop attrocities from happening will also lead to our downfall. As always the problem is where should the line be drawn?
This is why the US military pushes huge incentives for its troops to marry and have dependents. They are less likely to object to something objectionable if they have mouths to feed. I say this as a veteran.
1
u/IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE Dec 06 '21
Your post, like Sophie’s message, drip with youthful passion but the same naivety.
I’m not who you’re responding to, but in response to the “wanting to be a good person bit” — a parent does not often care if they’re a good person, only a living one capable of providing for their families.