I agree that that's not ideological at all. I don't find it particularly admirable, though.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The bottom line is that for you, life is either ideological, or is not at all, and truth, like good, like justice, are defined according to the ideological compass.
That being said, it's the end of our discussion because I can't debate with a fundamentalist notions that I deem as not relative to any faith. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Helping a sick man on the street can be a commendable act of principle, if it is founded in some sort of moral obligation to help the less well-off. But if it's simply a matter of gratifying a sense of moral superiority by helping those who are made disadvantaged by a system that you otherwise support, then no, on balance I don't see that as a particularly moral act.
Give a man a fish, and he'll have food for a day. Teach a man to demand justice, and he'll have food for the rest of his life.
We've covered the nature and merits of ideology elsewhere in this thread. And if you feel that acting on a set of gut feelings and superficial impressions that have no connection to each other, no coherence and no requirement of consistency is admirable and something that all of humanity should strive for, well, that's your prerogative.
For myself... not so much.
