It would depend on the nature of the ideals and how sincerely people believe in them, but I think it would be much better. One of the main rationalizations that people give for introducing bad things is that "it has to be that way".
Even if idealist is meant in the sense of impractical, it would still be much better. Impractical should not mean someone who doesn't contribute anything, but just someone who does not always see the most pragmatic way to do things. But 1 million impractical individuals are better than one psychopathic tyrant.
So it would not so much the presence of idealists as the absence of people who will introduce bad things or co-opt good things because it's "inevitable".
It would depend on the nature of the ideals and how sincerely people believe in them, but I think it would be much better. One of the main rationalizations that people give for introducing bad things is that "it has to be that way".
ReplyDeleteEven if idealist is meant in the sense of impractical, it would still be much better. Impractical should not mean someone who doesn't contribute anything, but just someone who does not always see the most pragmatic way to do things. But 1 million impractical individuals are better than one psychopathic tyrant.
So it would not so much the presence of idealists as the absence of people who will introduce bad things or co-opt good things because it's "inevitable".
I tend to agree with you. I've always wanted a world of idealists. But I did find myself wondering if the clash of ideals might be worse than apathy!
Delete