"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbcdba$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> >> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something
more
> >> akin to ethical objectivism.  Since you bothered to post at all, and
> >> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
> >> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.

> > Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.

> I'm not sure I catch your point.  Are you arguing that others should be
> apathetic but admit that you don't do it yourself?

Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I firmly
belive it's irrational for any individual to vote. I never did, won't.
However, I cannot advocate not voting. For while voting is irrational,
*advocating* not voting is also irrational (present company is too small,
and in any case, I have no delusions of convincing anyone even if I tried my
best). Advocating voter apathy is irrational because if too few voted, the
ensuing instability would likely degrade my quality of life. This is where
narrow definitions of consistency fail.

Of course, I may be posting here for edutainment, not because I care much
about the issues, which would eliminate the apparent paradox altogether.

Post a reply to this message