Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
> What you do is figure out how to do the ethically right thing, then do
> it and keep your mouth shut about it.

That may sound good, but it is both impossible and violates all the
characteristics of human society.

How would anyone "figure out" how to do the ethically "right" thing
except by weighing philosophical ideas about what is right? And how
to do so, unless one is a total hermit, except by learning from
others what they feel is right behavior toward them and others? In
any social species, members learn what is right action toward others by
first learning what other beings need and want, then determining how
one's own actions relate to that. A purely solipsistic morality is both
uninformed, and usually immoral. Any morality or ethics is always
based on the ethical opinion one has learned, either from one source,
or from many sources.

You don't worry if your one little
> action, which obviously has only symbolic value when there are over 6
> billion other people in the world, is going to save the world or not.
> If it's the right thing to do, you just do it, and content yourself with
> the knowledge you're doing the right thing.

But if one believes it really is the right thing, should they not
try to convince others? Why ignore wrong things being done to others
all around you? Do we not have an obligation to try to prevent genuine
wrong done to others? Every social ethical system holds that
we have _some_ obligation toward others.

<snip>

Rat