The author of this issue reveals an interesting dilemma in which people claim to struggle with
passionate commitment to and simultaneous discontent with an idea or policy. While those appear
mutually exclusive, life and history are replete with such examples. Einstein, celebrated for his
atomic theories, engaged wholeheartedly in the science field of study and with it, assisted the
Allies to conquer the Nazis in World War Two. Nevertheless, he became a fierce opponent to
utilizing nuclear weapons later in life after realizing their insidious danger.
While commitment to an idea may trigger the very awareness of its faults, and that awareness may
ultimately lead one to deviate from allegiance, I argue that this is not necessarily the case in
most circumstances.
To begin with, not everything is complex or ambiguous enough to provoke both commitment and
criticism. That is to say, our view of an idea or policy is, in many cases, plain and simple:
we are either highly enthusiastic about it or deeply critical of it. For supporting examples,
a myriad of discoveries come to mind which have already been proven true and will remain so
for a relatively long period of time. People would therefore have utter trust in such facts.
For example, educated people nowadays do not dispute the fact that the Earth is round, nor would
anyone deny the relationship between the Moon and ocean waves. These things are sufficiently
supported by scrupulous scientific evidence and will therefore provoke little criticism. Moreover,
I disagree with assumption that someone who is committed to an idea could later become most
critical of it. In many cases, once a person becomes faithful to an idea, he or she would ignore
any voice that disputes it. This is demonstrated by fanatically religious cults which are blind
to criticism. Moreover, even when people are aware of the disadvantages of an idea or policy,
it is highly likely that these shortcomings would outweigh its advantages so people would remain
loyal to it. Roosevelt's New Deal policy, among various examples, greatly supports my argument.
While Roosevelt had a thorough understanding of what detrimental influences, which derives from
government regulation, could be brought about upon capitalists and market economy, he adhered to
such a policy, which later contributed to revitalization of American economy from the Great
Depression. The very reason why he did so is that he was well aware that the potential desirable
consequences resulting from the policy would ultimately outshine the undesirable ones.
Even if people understand both the advantages and disadvantages of an idea or policy, and even if
the latter outweigh the former, we cannot conclude that they will become critical of it. People's
behaviors are determined by a variety of factors. Of those factors, the potential profit resulting
from a policy plays a paramount role. Consider factories which produce an exorbitant amount of
waste every year which seriously jeopardizes the natural environment. Do employees have no idea how
detrimental this waste is? Perhaps. Are the factory owners unaware of the deleterious consequences
that may be invited? I highly doubt that. The owners have much better knowledge than anyone else of
the potential threat of the waste, but this in no way hinders their behavior, but on the contrary,
galvanizes it. The reasons for this are the benefits that can be gained by such behavior. These
owners are exactly the ones who are most committed to their policy while not at all critical of it.
To sum up, while it is interesting to assert that contradictory attitudes to an idea may occur
simultaneously, I believe that in most cases, an idea or policy is not ambiguous or complex enough
to provoke an ambivalent position. Even if it is, other factors may sway our positions as well,
such as the information we possess regarding the policy, as well as the possible profits we may
obtain from it.