John’s attempt to rationalize it away by saying that a unique individual is different than a group is pretty weak. What is a group, but a collection of individuals who likely consider themselves to be unique. What this boils down to is a lack of responsibility. Society only continues and gets better if the current generation takes responsibility to raise up the next generation. If an individual decides that they’re going to live their best life, a life without responsibility, and that’s okay because society will continue without them, that’s probably true. UNLESS a large portion of society has the same idea. If EVERYONE thinks everyone else will be responsible, then no one is responsible. From a purely logical standpoint it’s true that the content of ones argument should be judged on its merits alone, but if that person can’t even follow their own advice, why would anyone listen to him when he lectures others?
I didn't understand John as himself attempting to rationalize something away, but rather I understood him to be attempting to understanding how a person in Glenn's situation might attempt to rationalizing the conflict between his behavior and his public exhortations away.
It gets a little conflicting. Two people can each be doing what they think is the best for everyone, and end up 'cancelling' each other's efforts. There needs to be some amount of compromise from each individual in order to make for a better group. But that should be a deliberate decision from each individual, not just a case of following the leader.
But, yes, it's hypocritical to have expectations of others that you don't even have of yourself.
John’s attempt to rationalize it away by saying that a unique individual is different than a group is pretty weak. What is a group, but a collection of individuals who likely consider themselves to be unique. What this boils down to is a lack of responsibility. Society only continues and gets better if the current generation takes responsibility to raise up the next generation. If an individual decides that they’re going to live their best life, a life without responsibility, and that’s okay because society will continue without them, that’s probably true. UNLESS a large portion of society has the same idea. If EVERYONE thinks everyone else will be responsible, then no one is responsible. From a purely logical standpoint it’s true that the content of ones argument should be judged on its merits alone, but if that person can’t even follow their own advice, why would anyone listen to him when he lectures others?
I didn't understand John as himself attempting to rationalize something away, but rather I understood him to be attempting to understanding how a person in Glenn's situation might attempt to rationalizing the conflict between his behavior and his public exhortations away.
It gets a little conflicting. Two people can each be doing what they think is the best for everyone, and end up 'cancelling' each other's efforts. There needs to be some amount of compromise from each individual in order to make for a better group. But that should be a deliberate decision from each individual, not just a case of following the leader.
But, yes, it's hypocritical to have expectations of others that you don't even have of yourself.