Is it better to do something practical for your own convenience that you would consider amoral or wrong, or to suffer and maintain your ideals? ie, is it better to abort so that you could finish school or advance in career, or save a life though the quality of life for you and the saved one will be much lower? Is it better to kill a competitor for resources or let them live and face harsher competition (think governmental styles or in terms of businesses bankrupting each other)?
2007-10-11 17:57:35 · 12 answers · asked by lazyslacker013 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I think it is rare to find someone who would put principles above practicality all the time.
I like the idea of Enlightened Self-Interest. This lets me acquire what I want while helping or at least not hurting anyone else in the process. That is about the best I can be.
2007-10-11 18:03:41 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Wu 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Let's be clear about the issue.When we opt to play a game,we have to follow the rules laid down for it or else we shouldn't play it.Similarly,when in business and facing competition,we have to go by the norms of the business and face the competition and surpass the competitors by whatever it takes.Ideas like righteousness get covered under business ethics and have no separate entity.Abortion is not killing,as it's just a surgical procedure but unfortunately has been a popular belief,specially amongst many religious people like Christians.It's up to us to consider and accept the way we want to run our life or a business.(Note:- would anybody close his business to save a competitor,who may be on the verge of a closure,for whatever reasons?I don't think so.Same goes for a surgical procedure.)
2007-10-12 01:26:31 · answer #2 · answered by brkshandilya 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither one of those sound attractive and I am sure there are other choices, but perhaps not for you, with your limited frame of reference.
I see nothing righteous about not having an abortion, nor anything practical in having one. It is a matter of personal choice, to correct a mistake, or not, as one chooses. I have done both, more than once, and feel quite comfortable with both choices.
Fortunately, in my world there is no need to destroy competitors for any kind of resources; nor would I; so your question is an intellectual exercise that I don't find stimulating.
There are those I would destroy, if I could, but I can't, so I never think about it, much. In my philosophy there are reasons to destroy, but believe me, the reasons I would destroy have nothing to do with resources.
2007-10-12 01:23:09 · answer #3 · answered by LodiTX 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Practicality and being rigtheous are different from one another, and it can only be applied on a case to case basis, there's a little similarity but can not be the same.
Practical in the sense of adjusting to certain situation, or be flexible as necessary using your mind and application of your common sense.
To be righteous is more on mental analysis, decision making which is better,rigth and advantageous.
2007-10-12 02:28:18 · answer #4 · answered by mae 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is always better to be righteous.
Ones own conveniences etc. shall all be too short living, and the satisfaction one seemingsl draws form that shall end faster, paving ways to disappointments. using others as stepping stones, or destroying competetor is anti natural and anti evolutionary. If one draws a line, other must be able to draw a longer line, and if that could not be doone, take it rioght spirit.
By being 'practical' one canonly make material gains, which are temporary, and which can only bring unhappiness in the loong run. do not risk being so, be good and righteous, which is satisfying, brings contentment, and long lasting.
2007-10-12 01:10:34 · answer #5 · answered by Dr. Girishkumar TS 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Look at Richard Stallman or Bill Gates. They had in them and still have a lot in them, what was needed to live out their own righteous lives. They have lived righteous lives ceaselessly and are doing so even now.
It is either unwise or too early to ask this question if you do not have what it takes to live a righteous life. As you adequately note, righteous life is a continuous uphill task and you have to have the right tools to live it.
Until then, best be practical in acquiring the tools and skills to live a righteous life.
2007-10-12 01:07:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Seems to me ~~ a lot of people what to make the word righteous more complicated than it is. In my opinion, all that word really means is to do what is right. If being practical fits in there anywhere, then so be it. Some may ask the question, 'what is right'? So, for all of you twelve and under, please get out of the philosophy section of Yahoo! Answers, thank you.
2007-10-12 01:53:25 · answer #7 · answered by Eve and the "2" snakes 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is always better to be righteous. It might be better in the short run to be practical, but I believe what comes around goes around.
2007-10-12 01:02:03 · answer #8 · answered by Kate J 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If maintaining your ideals causes you suffering, your ideals are not ideal. The rest of your question requires the use of coercion, the "initiation of force." Coercion is amoral, wrong, illegal, and not an ideal.
2007-10-12 08:40:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on:
1) Where you are
2) What everybody else is doing
3) What you consider to be the definition of "better"
2007-10-12 02:20:56 · answer #10 · answered by Tuna-San 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋