In theory, it is nice to argue that pursuing ones ideals can only lead to the greater good, but in truth there is often harm in failing to compromise. Only by knowing when we should maintain our moral ground and when we should surrender it can we act in a fashion that promotes the greatest possible good. Examples abound of the dangers of compromising ones beliefs. One may take the example of disgraced former president Richard Nixon, who, in allowing election fraud to take place, severely compromised the publics faith in their government. While Nixon believed that greater good would come out of this compromise of the duty of an elected official, it really only created a great deal of political turmoil in the country, and ultimately led to the demise of his administration. On a more personal level, most people have seen the negative effects of compromising ones beliefs. We believe we should not lie, and for good reasons. Telling one lie, for example, usually necessitates the telling of a second one, and a third one, an so onOh what at a tangled web we weave, when at first we start to deceive, as Shakespeare put it. And thus there are often negative consequences when we compromise our beliefs. At the same time, it may be argued that certain special cases exist wherein compromise is wholly necessary for the greater good. A famous example would be that of a terrorist who has hidden a nuclear bomb which, if detonated, would kill millions. Only by torturing the terrorist can we prevent the bomb from being exploded. Although our beliefs in human rights dictate that torture is an unconscionable means of extracting information, few people would hesitate to argue that this belief should not be compromised in this particular situation. This is no mere abstract thought-experiment, either. A real historical example would be that of Stalingrad, where, largely out of reasons of honor, the Soviet Union sacrificed a million innocent civilian lives in order to keep its city from falling into German hands. By todays standards, such a decision seems despotic and unjustifiable; no moral code could justify such a horrific result. We may thus conclude in general that there are no moral absolutessituations exist where the human damage that would be wrought by failing to compromise our beliefs demands that we compromise them. Thus, if there are no moral absoluteswe do not live, as Voltaire put it, in the best of all possible worldsthen we cannot absolutely argue that we should never compromise our beliefs. In certain situations, greater harm ensues from compromise, and in other situations, greater harm ensues from its absence. We must make our moral decisions on a case-by-case basis, by pursuing a balance between pragmatic and idealistic ends; only then can we work toward a world less full of harm.
在理论上，认为追求自己的理想只能导致更大的利益，但事实上，在没有妥协的失败中，这是很好的。只有当我们知道什么时候我们应该保持道德的基础，当我们应该放弃它，我们才能以一种促进最大可能的好的方式行动。影响一个人信仰的危险的例子比比皆是。一个人可能会以名誉扫地的前总统尼克松李察为例，他在允许选举舞弊的过程中，严重损害公众对政府的信任。而尼克松认为出来这种妥协的当选官员的责任会更美好，它真的只是创建一个伟大的处理政治动荡的国家，和最终LED他的政府的灭亡。在个人层面上，大多数人都看到了影响自己信仰的负面影响。我们相信我们不应该说谎，并有很好的理由。告诉一个谎言，例如，通常必须讲第二个，和第三人，等等-哦什么在一个纠结的网我们编织，当初我们开始欺骗，正如莎士比亚所说。因此，当我们在我们的信仰中妥协的时候，就会有消极的结果。在同一时间，它可能会认为，某些特殊情况下存在，其中妥协是完全必要的，更大的好。一个著名的例子是一个隐藏了一颗核弹的恐怖分子，如果它被引爆，将会杀死数百万人。只有折磨恐怖分子可以防止炸弹被引爆。虽然我国在人权的信念认为酷刑是信息提取的一个不合理的手段，很少有人会毫不犹豫地认为，这种信仰不应该在这种特殊情况下妥协。这不仅仅是一个抽象的思想实验。一个真实的历史性的例子是，斯大林格勒，在很大程度上出于荣誉的原因，苏联牺牲了一百万个无辜的平民生活，以使它的城市落入德国手中。以今天的标准来看，这样的决定似乎是专制和不合理的；没有道德规范可以证明这样一个可怕的结果。我们可以得出这样的结论一般，没有绝对的道德的情况存在，人为损坏，将不妥协我们的信仰要求我们妥协他们锻。因此，如果有没有绝对的道德我们不活，正如伏尔泰所说，最好的一切可能的世界，那么我们绝对不能认为，我们应该永不妥协我们的信念。在某些情况下，更大的伤害，而妥协，而在其他情况下，是没有更大的伤害。我们必须以个案为基础，通过追求务实与理想主义两端的平衡，使我们的道德决策，才能走向世界，减少对世界的伤害。