What do you think of the saying "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" Could this lead to moral laxity? Or?

Question

Is the admission of the impossibility of prevailing against a greater movement of people or other phenomena actually wisdom, a way to adapt to changing circumstance against which one may be powerless? What is your philosophy vis-'a-vis this idiom or saying? How is this not a proverb? Is it a lie?

Answer 1

Well, yes, because, you can also walk away from "them".

Answer 2

It could, but not always. I suppose that if a greater movement of people were engaged in some activity that I believed to be immoral, then for me to engage in that activity for the sake of not clashing with the movement would indeed be a moral failing. On the other side of the equation, tacking against a popular idea that I have no vested interest might be a source of suffering that adopting the popular position would improve.

In my opinion, the phrase is a trite statement, a defence mechanism for explaining why one might go against their better judgement. Nevertheless, the essence of wisdom found in this is that sometimes our better judgement is not the better solution. For example, I used to be adament about following speed limits on the motorways and would be rather annoyed by others violating that. After a certain point, I capitulated and relaxed my position on this, which I have found to be better after all as matching the speeds of others on the road is actually safer.

The wisdom one can glean is that no one can be forced into change. We might preach the virtues of our position, but in the end it comes down to the others choosing to follow that or not, and larger masses have a greater social inertia to change.

I am reminded of the prayer of St. Francis that in essence asks for the strength to change what can be changed, the courage to accept what cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference. In some instances, joining the crowd may be the courage needed to function in society. In others, it may simply giving in to a personal evil, to which this phrase is a salve for this type of decision.

Answer 3

You say it when you see yourself consistently ending up worse off than other people by trying to be moral, make a point etc. But sometimes the greater number will still lose out in the long run, while those who've done the deed first will still gain. EG If an organisation refuses to pay overtime, and everyone stuck out they would have to pay it in the end. BUT the few start working extra hours for basic rate and others see them getting pay that they are not, so more and more people agree to do it. I think it's the expression of resignation, the failure to believe that we can bring about change.

Answer 4

It's not a proverb nor a lie! I would think that adapting to changing circumstance is appropriate. Which does not mean to follow the greater crowd, but coping with all that come our way, this without war or fight.

Answer 5

I completely disagree with that concept for obvious motives. it extremely is the equivalent of announcing in case you won't be in a position to beat the terrorists, then connect them, or the different abomination available!!!!

Answer 6

It is not a lie it is perhaps a universal truth. Its often the only pragmatic solution to a problem and company's, nations and individuals have used it to good effect all down the centuries.

Answer 7

Forget moral laxity. It leads to total mindlessness. After all, if you can't beat'm join'm works for sheep. Which is ok if you want to be a sheep.

Answer 8

I think it is a negative saying in that it encourages you to give up your freewill and individuality.

Answer 9

I cant stand anybody say that. Its shite. Its weak.