args

If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

No offence taken, Juan_Pablo. "This statement is very logical and answers itself. People that don't go out of their way to make the world better, to push for fairness, justice, universal healthcare and education, people that don't contribute to acts of charity, who aren't neighborly and compassionate, who don't promote peace and concern for the Earth SHOULD NOT expect to live in a kind, fair, generous world! Their actions and attitudes are promoting a world that cannot establish these things, that cannot possibly make them universal, either in their own regions or abroad. And in a very real sense, they don't deserve a kind, just world to call home. What are they doing to establish such a world? Now, I'm not saying that such people should be punished for such behavior and attitudes (not unless they break the law, which is one device society can use to attempt to rectify an offender), but these people aren't making the world a better experience for everyone, so they shouldn't expect a better world in return!" While I completely understand this statement, I cannot say I agree with it. First, I'd like to say thank you for clarifying something; by "good," we mean, "better." This was a slightly ambiguous statement, and I thank you for making sure we're on the same page. Also, although many people don't try to make the world better, they do contribute to it. In my perspective, every human being contributes to making the world better, simply by existing. There are also people that try to make the world better, or, from their perspective, anyway; instead, they end up making it worse... Temporarily. You'll notice, we always end up fixing the world when such a crisis happens. There are many infamous people who, despite being thought of now as evil, may have, at the time, thought they were doing good. In the end, our society rose up and got stronger and more bonded because of fending off racist, convertionist, and sexist cults. Even if someone is not actively trying to establish justic and equality for all, does that mean they don't want it? They might, as I said, simply picture this as an abstract concept, and not think of the people suffering in other parts of the world. Also, one might be neighborly and compassionate, but not actively trying to improve the world as we know it. Imagine walking by, happily minding your own business, when an old lady trips and falls, spraining her ankle. You might instinctively rush to help her up; you might flip out your cell phone and call whoever you can think of; you might walk her back to her house, and ask her if she has any relatives. Does that mean you're trying to improve the world? I honestly can't imagine someone simply walking by, ignoring the old lady. That doesn't mean every person on Earth is actively doing things to make the world better. "Those that aren't willing to put in that effort simply shouldn't expect it, and when some great injustice happens to them, they need to ask themselves "how did this happen?" Even others who do try to establish such a world, and who suffer injustice, do so because there are individuals who aren't trying to make the world better. This demonstrates the universal extent of this problem." Now here's where our opinions differ. Bad things happen, and I don't believe this is because there are people who aren't ambitious enough to try to effect the world. I believe this is because we, humans, have differing opinions. Some might call it justice, some might not. Justice, in itself, exists independant of our emotions. The question is whether it's possible for us to capture it in our actions. Each and every one of us contributes a role, whether that role is good or bad. It's not, at least not completely, up to us whether we are acting on justice or not. Injustice happens to all, because perfection is an abstract concept. We will never be perfect. When one person looks around them, they see a world filled with chaos and strife, one that they should work on improving. When another human does the same, they see only the world. Or maybe, life. Either way, the point is that they don't think it needs improving, or that, if it does, they should be the ones to improve. They think of their life, and the starving children half way across the world are merely hypathetical. They think, "Aww, that's terrible!" but they don't think, "I can devote my life to improving this, and it might be eliminated!" In reality, that would actually be a slightly illogical view. The world, as I've said, can never be perfect. Humans, as a race, always have room for improvement. This is part of what defines us. Although we should always be trying to make it better, we have to admit that it won't be perfect. There will be people that don't care. But the question is, should those people expect a better, but not perfect, world? In summary, my argument is: Just because someone chooses not to effect the world doesn't mean they don't deserve to live in the best version of it we can create using all of us combined.