Is simply "be... " ing "...the change you wish to see in the world" enough?

Question

I sometimes wonder if there is an ethical imparitive to not only live by attitudes and actions you believe to be "right", but also to try and cultivate those attitudes and views in others. Or at least try and make your feelings known through interaction.

I think other people believe so as well. Door to door religion sellers, PETA, any activist group.

So in general, I suppose I'm asking if you believe there to be an ethical imparative twoards activism, or if passive action and living your ideals is enough to fulfill your need to "do what's right".

Answer 1

I think being the change you want to see in the world is a wonderful start, and if EVERYONE did that, there would be no need for the other group you mentioned, however that isn't going to happen, so there is always going to be more we can do to improve things.

Answer 2

When I was young I joined every organization that fit the bill for my beliefs and attitudes, from student organizations opposing "non-war" to groups helping returning soldiers, then a group living "a new social structure..." and more!

A lilttle crazy, a little much, but I wouldn't trade it. I'm still active around voting time, talking to folks; and of course when I take the garbage out!

Glad you are too, if you are an activist of any sort. Maybe recycle at least, huh? And advise others to?

Answer 3

I choose to answer the question as a cynical bastard, I hope that's OK:

"Ethical imperative" or not, it seems to me that spreading the word is ultimately futile in a world as small minded, insulated, parochial, self-centered, brainwashed, and addicted to comfort as the one we live in. Who do you know that's ever had their mind changed? By their own admission,ever lost an argument? Only the exceptional.

We are too trapped in our own consciousness--our behavior too culturally determined--for the average person to change the world through persuasion. It seems to me you can either spend time teaching the world to fish, or donate some of your catch to the starving. You can do both, but for most it's a waste of time.

I will qualify everything I've said above by stating the obvious: some very special human beings can shift the paradigm with words. For better or worse, Gandhi, the man who made famous the idea of "being the change you wish to make," was certainly influential. But the everlasting feud between Pakistan and India may be proof that there are limitations to the suasive force of even a rhetorical master like Gandhi. And don't kid yourself, "cultivating attitudes" is shorthand for practicing rhetoric.

Despite the absurd nature of life and the constructed nature of morals, we should all believe in things--it's part of human dignity, part of the beauty of being human, part of our ability to empathize. But we should temper what we do with the realization that it is impossible to outrun our sense of vanity with our good intentions--our desire to be loved, admired, respected (and even feared) is at the root of everything we do, which is why there are no unselfish acts. I happen to think that's a beautiful part of being human (our vulnerability to other human beings because we desire to be held in high esteem by them).

In short, I don't cotton to evangelicals (religious or otherwise), because the attitude that finds Jehovah's Witnesses or anti-social PETA reps or Republican Party members at my door speaks for a low level of awareness--an arrogance. We should all question our beliefs enough to merely be content to live by them and stop short of recruiting the rest of the world to follow our lead.

Still, as Aimee man said "the crazy will of a Margret Thatcher..."

In any event, a summary: I feel the difference between Donald Trump and Mother Theresa is the degree of empathy they experience(d). And People who proselytize are annoying, arrogant, and deluded (sometimes they change the world).