Or a person with a sick kid, or who is about to be evicted, or who made some bad financial decisions or for some other reason is about to run out of food money. In those situations it's very easy to rationalize that the good outweighs the bad.
I've only been in a similar situation once. I could barely sleep at night for a week before I finally told them that I couldn't do it. In my situation I would have taken a financial hit if they decided to let me go, but my wife works and I have savings and there was no immediate threat, and it still was a difficult decision.
Why would you diminish all those silent heroes who do decline the morally bankrupt job despite not making rent , or having to carry bad financial decisions?
The truth is that in the US we do have some very expensive social safety nets, and it always comes back to the morals of the individual. You can rationalize just about anything against all kinds situations, but in the end we are talking about someone morally corrupt, or morally steadfast.
Dont justify the injustifiable.
Instead Judge character in the hard times and use that opportunity elevate the heroes that do the right thing im the face of adversity.
I'm not diminishing anything. I'm just not willing to condemn people without taking into account extenuating circumstances.
People regularly justify things that are not justified. When there's a lot of pressure, rationalizing is very easy. It's not even easy to realize that something is being rationalized.
I'm not justifying the unjustifiable. I'm saying that a person doesn't have be morally "bankrupt" to do something bad. Condemning people as morally bankrupt without taking into account extenuating circumstances is certainly not justified.
Or a person with a sick kid, or who is about to be evicted, or who made some bad financial decisions or for some other reason is about to run out of food money. In those situations it's very easy to rationalize that the good outweighs the bad.
I've only been in a similar situation once. I could barely sleep at night for a week before I finally told them that I couldn't do it. In my situation I would have taken a financial hit if they decided to let me go, but my wife works and I have savings and there was no immediate threat, and it still was a difficult decision.
Why would you diminish all those silent heroes who do decline the morally bankrupt job despite not making rent , or having to carry bad financial decisions?
The truth is that in the US we do have some very expensive social safety nets, and it always comes back to the morals of the individual. You can rationalize just about anything against all kinds situations, but in the end we are talking about someone morally corrupt, or morally steadfast.
Dont justify the injustifiable.
Instead Judge character in the hard times and use that opportunity elevate the heroes that do the right thing im the face of adversity.
I'm not diminishing anything. I'm just not willing to condemn people without taking into account extenuating circumstances.
People regularly justify things that are not justified. When there's a lot of pressure, rationalizing is very easy. It's not even easy to realize that something is being rationalized.
I'm not justifying the unjustifiable. I'm saying that a person doesn't have be morally "bankrupt" to do something bad. Condemning people as morally bankrupt without taking into account extenuating circumstances is certainly not justified.
1 reply →