« If you want to know what we really think of you, the answer is we don't, | Main | The home telephone had a good hundred-year run. »
June 7, 2015
This Liberal Arts problem of mine concerns the ethics of the virtuous man in the woods of chaos.
How should one engage the man who tattoos his forehead with the mark of the Beast in reaction to the evil he perceives in the world?How much patience should one have with moral laxity? I have little patience with things that are broken, but while people are not things, a person who behaves with only a fraction of his humanity engaged is asking to be abstracted. To what extent is it in my position in society to insist on virtue in the collective? Do I have to assess the whole or just the man within reach? Could I waste my entire fortune in sympathy with the degraded and corrupt? Could I exhaust my tolerance and patience addressing every corruption? What is the appropriate middle ground, or is moderation itself the agent of complacency? I Am - Cobb
Posted by gerardvanderleun at June 7, 2015 6:55 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
Your Say
The guy with the tattoo on his forehead? Label him: loser.
As for the rest, they are either good or evil. It will depend on which one you feed.
Posted by: chasmatic ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://americandigest.org/sidelines/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 7, 2015 6:28 PM
We do the best we can with what we have. Or we try for the best, anyway. Mostly we just keep on. Sometimes I like Cobb. Sometimes he ticks me off. Posts like this make me want to sit down with him and shoot the shit for a couple hours.
JWM
Posted by: John M at June 7, 2015 11:17 PM