Lets say for the sake of argument that there are two places that are on either end of a set of scales. When you add more influence to one side the scale on the other side slips a bit. If the scales were to slide too far out of balance it might be catastrophic for which ever side is down.
Now there are two ways of looking at this:
1. Adjusting the scale upwards so as to prefer one side of the scale is beneficial to all on that side, and the minor negative effects to the other side can be ignored as insignificant.
2. The beneficial effect of the tilting scale makes that side complacent, and the adversity faced by the other side makes them stronger.
Lets say, that in this model it is necessary that one side achieve a certain strength, and that the other side achieve a certain beneficence. Of course when I draw the argument this way, it is painfully obvious that asserting the difference between sides must be done and to a greater extent.
What do you think?
The educated best feeling guess? :)
Just a general question.
Nothing to see here.. move along..
I feel like a broken record:
"There is nothing Good or Bad, only thinking makes it so"
Ethics and morals are merly an ideology and not a divine law.
See - NEGITIVE is NOT separated from POSITIVE. Got to your fridge and pull a magnet off it and try to now separate the negitive pole from the positive...you can't, not with out breaking it, and when you do, you create a new balance, a new positive or negtive pole.
WHY? Because much like the world, the magnet has an internal counter balance system. When you break the magnet it auto corrects itself by creating a new magnetic pole, so such is with the world.
You say that now... until you perceive some effect being more negative for you personally, and then suddenly this kind of a question snaps into perspective and you care enough to answer in opposition. Why is that I wonder... broken magnet didn't readjust polarity? Something changed sufficiently to make the interest personal.
Tell me, Robert, hypothetically of course, if your state was determined to be the one that needed toughening, and lets say... a state on the polar opposite side of the planet (or close) was chosen to suddenly gain vast wealth and a utopia lifestyle. Would you consider the hardship suddenly imposed (it comes from without) upon your state (and you personally) as being unjust?
hmm, I see an obvious third option -
3. tilting the scale makes the prefered side stronger and the adversly effected side weaker