At the same time, it may be argued that certain special cases exist wherein compromise is wholly necessary for the greater good. A famous example would be that of a terrorist who has hidden a nuclear bomb which, if detonated, would kill millions. Only by torturing the terrorist can we prevent the bomb from being exploded. Although our beliefs in human rights dictate that torture is an unconscionable means of extracting information, few people would hesitate to argue that this belief should not be compromised in this particular situation. This is no mere abstract thought-experiment, either. A real historical example would be that of Stalingrad, where, largely out of reasons of honor, the Soviet Union sacrificed a million innocent civilian lives in order to keep its city from falling into German hands. By today\'s standards, such a decision seems despotic and unjustifiable; no moral code could justify such a horrific result.
We may thus conclude in general that there are no moral absolutes—situations exist where the human damage that would be wrought by failing to compromise our beliefs demands that we compromise them. Thus, if there are no moral absolutes—we do not live, as Voltaire put it, “in the best of all possible worlds”—then we cannot absolutely argue that we should never compromise our beliefs. In certain situations, greater harm ensues from compromise, and in other situations, greater harm ensues from its absence. We must make our moral decisions on a case-by-case basis, by pursuing a balance between pragmatic and idealistic ends; only then can we work toward a world less full of harm.
【2015年GRE写作模拟题(2)Issue】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-04
2016-03-04
2016-03-04
2016-03-04
2016-03-04
2016-03-04