if you could
Jul. 29th, 2021 11:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceagleAnother friend posted musing entry, so I thot it might be time to pitch one in as well, since I have been thinking about it while I drive lately....
If you had the magical ability to either eliminate the bad people, or empower the good people, which might you prefer?
It's a very tough question, I think, and depending on one's mood (usually in a reaction to something experienced at the moment), one might lean toward one or the other in a bit o' tug of war, like the trope of the angel and devil on the shoulder.
Like when I see the news about freeway road rage shootings or even when someone is excessively rude or hurtful in a public place, there can be an inner urge to 'send them to the cornfield' (re: the classic Twilight Zone episode)
On the other hand, those who give so much to the world and others, if they could be empowered with fortunes or networks or other tremendous means of amplifying their works, would it be a greater good for the cosmos when it all comes out in the wash....
Looking historically, I see more examples of the latter... that when zillionaires give to make resources available, whether it be hospitals or parks or foundations etc, it seems to be a huge benefit. And also, simply eliminating the bad eggs doesn't seem to keep new ones from being hatched.
Logically it seems the latter example is the prudent one... but it's still an ongoing challenge to stay the course when a bad example throws cherry bomb in the works along the way.
If you had the magical ability to either eliminate the bad people, or empower the good people, which might you prefer?
It's a very tough question, I think, and depending on one's mood (usually in a reaction to something experienced at the moment), one might lean toward one or the other in a bit o' tug of war, like the trope of the angel and devil on the shoulder.
Like when I see the news about freeway road rage shootings or even when someone is excessively rude or hurtful in a public place, there can be an inner urge to 'send them to the cornfield' (re: the classic Twilight Zone episode)
On the other hand, those who give so much to the world and others, if they could be empowered with fortunes or networks or other tremendous means of amplifying their works, would it be a greater good for the cosmos when it all comes out in the wash....
Looking historically, I see more examples of the latter... that when zillionaires give to make resources available, whether it be hospitals or parks or foundations etc, it seems to be a huge benefit. And also, simply eliminating the bad eggs doesn't seem to keep new ones from being hatched.
Logically it seems the latter example is the prudent one... but it's still an ongoing challenge to stay the course when a bad example throws cherry bomb in the works along the way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2021-07-30 09:30 am (UTC)Bill Mummy’s finest roll!
I won’t throw my hat in this ring: a philosophical and political minefield for those who partake ;o)
no subject
Date: 2021-07-31 06:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-08-01 05:14 am (UTC)Assuming good people are objectively good and stay that way, I would say that empowering good people is usually the way to go. As you say, there will always be "new bad people" to deal with, and even people who are "bad" in some way may have something to contribute. To use a MLP analogy, banishing people to the moon is sort of counterproductive at some point, even though getting rid of genuinely bad people should make life more "palatable" (less frustrating/disruptive) in a shortsighted way.