Ideals worth fighting for

The other day (two weeks ago) I had once again lengthy discussion with my little brother, this time without any of us being intoxicated. Above mentioned colloquy focused on ideas of ideals*. Bellow you can find brief summary of my views and arguments.

Each of us has some ideals and goals. Even the laziest ones (e.g. my brother) have ultimate goal of not doing anything and spending their time staring at the ceiling in their rooms. The ultimate question is whether these objectives are good or bad and whether we can judge them as such. Who has the moral authority to decide whether my goal is better than yours?

My argument goes that any ideal you commit yourself to is good. Being "good" means it forces you into; taking a stance, action or changing your life in some way and thus evocate progress and evolution. By "committing yourself" I mean you are willing to fight for it (not literally - see more detailed discussion further below) - undergo strains and pains in order to achieve it. If you are unwilling to do so it means that ideal you proclaim to fashion is not the one you really strive to achieve. For example dedication of lazy person to laziness can be measured by what he is willing to sacrifice (strains) in order to be able not to do anything. He is willing to forgo higher salary earned in time demanding jobs and / or positions requiring long-term training and education. Economically speaking, time spent in bed brings higher utility than consumption of goods to be bought by money earned.

Under "anything goes" policy we are also admitting ideals and ideas of that twisted mind of bearded caveman in hiding for past seven years. These ideals as such are "good" even though 99 per cent of world population do not agree with them. We have no moral right to limit his thoughts, forbade his thinking and enforce our views upon him. What we are capable of is judging his actions which he undertakes in the process of achieving his goals. Killing of people will always be wrong, no matter what is the reason and ultimate goal.

By judging only action we do not prevent thinking but we prevent any potential excuses that might be used by criminals and other characters. There is no excuse for atrocities performed by German soldiers during WWII or Congolese rebels in the most recent uprising. There is no apology for crimes committed because you were just following orders (Germans) or excuse that you were only protecting Hutu minority and displaced, raped and robed 1 million people in the process (DR Congo). In thinking this way we are using deontological ethics and its theories rather than consequentialism.

In order to decide righteousness of act we should use simplistic principle of "do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you". This is in fact very simplified version of I. Kant's three maxims. Basically, we are saying that if you want to cause harm to someone by means of detonation, first do it to yourself (and you save us lot of money and time).

Note: * here meaning "an ultimate object or aim of endeavor" (Merriam-Webster).