> We can try to steer the elephant, and may have some success with that on occasion, but complete control is not possible. What I am saying, is that it's ok to let the elephant do what it wants sometimes, because ultimately it's going to do that a lot of the time anyway.
That's not a sound argument though. E.g. the fact that you can't save every starving child in no way proves that you shouldn't try as hard as you can to save those that you can.
This isn't related to the prior subject of the thread, but:
> E.g. the fact that you can't save every starving child in no way proves that you shouldn't try as hard as you can to save those that you can.
"Shouldn't" is doing a lot of work there. Why should anything be done? It's a question of morals.
So on the moral question of whether someone should try as hard as they can to save as many starving children as possible: I don't do that. I'm pretty certain 100% of people here including you don't either. Actually 100% of the world aside from perhaps the parents of said starving children plus a rounding error of extremely passionate and dedicated people will do so.
So I think that is pretty well established isn't it? You need not try as hard as you can to save starving children.
Better analogy might be that you can't prevent being in an automobile accident all the time, that doesn't make it okay to stop paying attention sometimes.
That's not a sound argument though. E.g. the fact that you can't save every starving child in no way proves that you shouldn't try as hard as you can to save those that you can.