Reply #10: Some questions, or a question, for all: [View All]

[LWolf]

If I pass a starving child on the street, should I withhold support in the way of a meal because my one meal won't save her, or should I feed her, because it's the right thing to do?

If I see a fight between my students on the playground, should I step in and stop it, or should I turn a blind eye because my intervention won't abolish playground bullying or violence?

When I have a chance to do the right thing, should I abstain because the rest of the world won't do it with me, or should I stand on principle and do the right thing anyway?

Which is more likely to create change: people seeing others who make ethical choices regardless of whether or not the world supports them, or people who see everyone else shying away from the discomfort of standing on principle?

Is "Everybody does it," or "Nobody will join me," a legitimate or appropriate excuse for non-action?

If abolishing nuclear weapons is the right thing to do, which action will lead us closer to that eventual possibility:

*citizens of the world standing up and saying so, and supporting propositions by enlightened leaders,

*or citizens of the world engaging in collective defeatism when such a proposition is made?

I, for one, will stand with the authors and co-sponsors of HR 950, because it's the right thing to do. The more people that stand up, the louder the voice, the more the concept will reach, the more it will take hold in people's consciousness, the sooner the world will become that change.