What price too high?

Many thoughts swirling around in my head this morning.  I got up early today to try and jot them down:

• Purity tests…  is the price ever too high to pay?
• Spock’s “the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few… or the one.”
• Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer’s “Will this institution survive the stench that…" 

*    *    *

Let’s get into the weeds now.  Let’s talk about principles, something that also may be thought of as “purity tests.” I have plenty myself, so I viscerally understand the concept.  I admire principles.  I respect them.  I know that no one arrives at them without serious contemplation, often many hard years in the making.  Principles are no small thing.  Totally get that. [SMH Yes]

The revered character, Spock, realized in the final moments of his life, that “the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few… or the one.”  Now that’s a lofty principle; maybe the ultimate purity test.  The height of selflessness, I’d say.  Going outside the self and looking at the bigger picture.  I can get that too.

Sonia Sotomayer wondered if “tossing out the landmark rulings would tarnish the court's reputation and open the floodgates to other challenges to well-settled law.”

All interesting ideas to ponder.  I’d call them “bottom line” kinds of thoughts.  Now let’s look at the other end of the “idealism versus realism” spectrum.

*    *    *

When all is said and done, when the chips are finally down, does “idealism” really trump “realism?”  Should it?  We may not like it, the reality, but can we be that (I’ll call it) “unreasonable / stubborn / rigid / indeed “ideologically pure?”  Yes, there are things, personal things, that we will absolutely not compromise on. They are that important to us.  And there are things we know we must compromise on, like it or not.  And we never do (like it), even though we know it is for the greater good.  Is that the ultimate test?  What is done for the greater good?  Excellent question.

*    *    *

Well, that prologue took a while, and now that I’ve gotten you in the desired mindset, it finally brings us to my specific questions… almost. 😉

Yesterday I again had an exchange with a poster who believes that personal principles trump the greater stark reality.  Or so it seemed, to me.  Specifically, we were talking about being confronted with what the poster saw as “two bad choices” (Biden versus Trump).  The poster insists s/he will not vote for either; not be forced to pick between "the lesser of two evils," taking a stand on personal principles. Maybe in that poster’s mind s/he thinks, "does one more vote for or against really matter in the greater scheme of things?"  The answer seems like a “No, it won’t really matter.”  And still, another thing I can get.  Yes, I do get all these things.

Question: 

Which of the following do you agree/disagree with?  Give examples to support your belief:

1. Sometimes the price is “too high to pay” for our personal principles.
2. Principles always trump reality, including existential threats, no exceptions. 
3. Sticking to principles only is valid when those principles only affect oneself.
4. Never compromise your principles. It’s a matter of personal integrity, damn the consequences. 
5. Principles should/must be compromised when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.
6. Never allow “the perfect” to be the enemy of “the good.”

(by PrimalSoup)

Now, time for some coffee ☕.  Thanks in advance for thinking about these things, and commenting! 😊