righteousness or peace?
In a recent post, my buddy talked briefly about the choice between righteousness and peace. Teddy Roosevelt has been quoted in the Museum of Natural History as saying "If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness"
The statement begs deeper thought and introspection. So I gave it some and then I did some.
Always being one to think at logical extremes, I realized that righteousness and peace should necessarily go together if all people around us were reasonable and principled. But that almost never happens. Most of the times we see absolute pricks around us with egos the size of Hindenbergs (and at the same altitude too). Hence the question about the choice between righteousness and peace.
So does one continue down the path of righteousness and fight for one's principles? Or does one meekly accept the situation and opt for peace? To that I'd say choose your battles well, my friend. Righteousness does not demand immediate retaliation, nor does it demand violence. If the next guy is a pissant prick, sure... look around to make sure it's safe, and then knock the punk's lights out!
But if not, postpone your response to another day and to another situation. Perhaps even think about how righteousness would best dictate the response.
But more often than not, a retaliatory response is more in defence of a hurt ego than of righteousness. More often than not, it's not righteousness that's endangered, it's your self esteem and ego. More often than not, righteousness is just used as a cover for justifying basically selfish and downright imbecilic actions.
Take the US invasion of Afghanistan and then of Iraq as an example. The "coalition against terror" used righteousness as a shield to justify morally degraded and completely unforgivable actions. I bet that dumb asshole Bush thought about Roosevelt's statement and thought it justified his approach and his actions. But the Islamic extremists also would be in an equally strong position to claim that Roosevelt's statement justified all of their actions too.
Moral of the story? Don't be an asshole! Be sensible and figure out if it's indeed righteousness which is at stake here? Otherwise peace is always a better choice. If your principles are indeed at stake, question whether your principles are righteous in the first place. If you're Bush, for example, you're a dipshit and your principles are worth less than a steaming pile of dog turd on a hot humid afternoon!
If righteousness is indeed at stake, you should indeed fight for it (otherwise you'd be a right pussy!). But choose carefully your mode of retaliation. Most of the times, the blow which is not visible hurt a lot more than a punch on the face!
The statement begs deeper thought and introspection. So I gave it some and then I did some.
Always being one to think at logical extremes, I realized that righteousness and peace should necessarily go together if all people around us were reasonable and principled. But that almost never happens. Most of the times we see absolute pricks around us with egos the size of Hindenbergs (and at the same altitude too). Hence the question about the choice between righteousness and peace.
So does one continue down the path of righteousness and fight for one's principles? Or does one meekly accept the situation and opt for peace? To that I'd say choose your battles well, my friend. Righteousness does not demand immediate retaliation, nor does it demand violence. If the next guy is a pissant prick, sure... look around to make sure it's safe, and then knock the punk's lights out!
But if not, postpone your response to another day and to another situation. Perhaps even think about how righteousness would best dictate the response.
But more often than not, a retaliatory response is more in defence of a hurt ego than of righteousness. More often than not, it's not righteousness that's endangered, it's your self esteem and ego. More often than not, righteousness is just used as a cover for justifying basically selfish and downright imbecilic actions.
Take the US invasion of Afghanistan and then of Iraq as an example. The "coalition against terror" used righteousness as a shield to justify morally degraded and completely unforgivable actions. I bet that dumb asshole Bush thought about Roosevelt's statement and thought it justified his approach and his actions. But the Islamic extremists also would be in an equally strong position to claim that Roosevelt's statement justified all of their actions too.
Moral of the story? Don't be an asshole! Be sensible and figure out if it's indeed righteousness which is at stake here? Otherwise peace is always a better choice. If your principles are indeed at stake, question whether your principles are righteous in the first place. If you're Bush, for example, you're a dipshit and your principles are worth less than a steaming pile of dog turd on a hot humid afternoon!
If righteousness is indeed at stake, you should indeed fight for it (otherwise you'd be a right pussy!). But choose carefully your mode of retaliation. Most of the times, the blow which is not visible hurt a lot more than a punch on the face!
posted by the grim sleeper at 7:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home