361
hypothetical quick time rule
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Is it morally wrong to choose inaction, to not involve ourselves in a no-win scenario? By simply being present, are we already involved? Will God someday judge us for these most pivotal moments?
I also choose not to press x.
From a Nietzschean perspective, I would press x, because it costs me nothing and causes others to feel gratitude and indebtedness to me, and improves my mental state. Thus, it improves my condition and capacity to exercise my will for no cost. If my physical health was at risk in this scenario, beyond what I could receive in return from others, I would not. If only momentary discomfort was at risk (ie. a bruise), but the people involved would remain indebted or grateful, and see me as a "good" person (which has certain inherent benefits), it would be stupid not to, and by my personal morals it would be wrong, because I am choosing to remain weak rather than increase my influence over others at a small, momentary cost.
Philanthropy for one's benefit and mental health has certain benefits, which often outweigh the cost. If many more people did this, perhaps it would still be a stable society. Harming others for no purpose is a sign of weakness, "demonstrating" power (a sign for which the truly strong have no need). Only the strong have the luxury of "loving thy neighbour," and not doing so, but allowing others to be harmed in the same move as a loss of opportunity for yourself, is stupid and weak.