So there is a question that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time: do the ends justify the means? Or, more, specifically, when do the ends justify the means?
Being a liberal at an extremely conservative university, I have few friends that I feel comfortable talking politics with; that I feel will understand me when I try to make points. Politics is an amazingly broad topic, and as such, requires one to know a lot about a lot in order to really have an opinion about something. Since coming home from my mission, I have been actively searching for information on everything that even remotely relates to politics. I do not consider myself an informed person, though I am much more informed than I was 6 months ago when I first came home.
In order to facilitate my knowledge/understanding/growth, I joined the BYU Democrats (yes, I'm a liberal at BYU, maybe now that first paragraph carries a little more meaning). I have made many friends in the club, friends that I respect and from whom I have learned a great deal (and continue to). They are the aforementioned people, the few here I trust to talk politics with. They are also the only ones I feel comfortable sharing my personal inadequacies with: specifically relating to my lack of being informed on political topics.
Recently one of these close friends attacked me on not being adequately informed, something I personally struggle with already. While we are both liberal, he supports Clinton, while I support Obama. He attacked me on not knowing enough about Obama, something I've already confided in him; to make matters even more difficult, he debated with me about it just to prove his point.
As far as I can tell, someone can only have two reasons for accusing someone of something else: 1)that person doesn't realize their fault, or 2)they are not doing anything about it. Considering both statements are untrue of me, I am left with a troubling conundrum: why did this person do what he did? Was I wrong to befriend him? Am I just a glutton for punishment, unconsciously choosing those people who will take advantage of me for their own personal amusement? And what am I to do now with the rage he has so effectively drawn out in me?
Perhaps I could just forgive and forget if I could be sure that this was a one-time thing, but I'm fairly certain that it's exactly the opposite. I'm quite certain that he will keep attacking me where I'm softest. On the one hand, it's good, because I'm now much more motivated to know as much as possible. On the other hand, however, are my motivations righteous? Does that even matter, considering the ends are righteous? Or does the righteousness of the ends depend on the righteousness of the means? Where is the balance?
I am a firm believer that whatever can be accomplished by evil motivations can be accomplished by good motivations. Matter of fact, I strongly believe... no, I know that good motivations will always be able to outperform evil motivations; whether or not good motivations actually do is up to the person, but they will always be able to. So why does my friend (along with what seems like the vast majority of the world) insist on evoking evil intentions out of people, instead of accomplishing the same thing by evoking good intentions?
No comments:
Post a Comment