Ideals and practicality clash; an ideal is a goal too lofty to be reached, and sometimes resorting to a lesser ambition is to be favored, for only being an principled idealist will make one a fool. Unfortunately, society foundations upon the exploitation of the dupes, who are often wrongfully exiled; a commonality in any culture is that an avaricious man enjoys much of the blessings and the benefits provided, while an altruistic beggared suffers, without even a social recognition rightfully deserved. Therefore, the essential to be a greed that take pleasure in the blessings than to be an abandoned kind man.
In such argument, a conflict arises between whether there is an ideal or whether there should be an ideal. Indubitably, an ideal is to be desired: no one will prefer a society plagued by corruption and dread taking advantage of naive masses over a community of comprehensive unselfishness, if both can be reached. Then a question arises: can such idealistic state be reached?
Practicality goes against idealism. The efficacy and the sheer possibility of such society compacted by unrealistic but munificent individuals is low. Humans are animals with logic, and reason usually embodies self interest (the syllogism reveals that humans are animals of self interest). No matter how respected, kind, and charitable a person may be, altruism is not a virtue that is prolonged; human nature governs that a person sometimes acts out of self interest, as he or she will instinctively be inclined to support a cause that will yield personal benefits. To elaborate, it is not uncommon to find an instance a clear justification for a vice cannot be given-an instance that personal interest has gained the upper hand in a quarrel between rationale. Therefore, to ask whether such idealistic society can be reached is essentially flawed.
Therefore, when an underlying foundation is reached that such a state is desirable but unreachable, a fair option is to avoid becoming a miserable source of exploitation, for believing a fair social position even as a good man is impractical: a good person is bound to fall into the pool of abuse, since altruism falls apart in the brawl against practicality. The best option is to become an avarice who receives all the world’s blessings, because only then a person will be able to enjoy a lofty social position and comfort.
Then I ask again, would you live a life in expel and altruism or greed, respect, comfort, and prospective, not many would choose to become an exile; this can simply be proved in the context of natural intentions of anyone to support an action that will benefit.
A counterargument may be that some, despite the opportunities to success, chooses to become a good man who is blinded, a fitting example drawn to monks. I do not go against such possibility, as such people are to be respected, living such a close-to-ideal life, but a majority of the population, do not care of the monks, since they play no practical role in their life; they, therefore, have secluded themselves in exile.
Without a doubt, to become a good man is respectable, and to be with all the world blessings and generous is not impossible, as for example, Rockefeller was a great philanthropist. Nevertheless, given the two choices, the practicality lies in becoming an evil man.
Picture Reference : http://coffeeshopthinking.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/the-philosophical-and-political-decline-according-to-cicero/
Jaesung Lee 