GRE写作Issue模拟题8:Pursuing One's Ideals

In theory, it is nice to argue that pursuing one's 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 one's beliefs. One may take the example of disgraced former president Richard Nixon, who, in allowing election fraud to take place, severely compromised the public's 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 one's 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 on—“Oh 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 today's 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 absolutes—situations 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 absolutes—we do not live, as Voltaire put it, “in the best of all possible worlds”—then 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.