I hate how so many groups are more worried about their ideologies than with improving our world. Animal rights, environmentalists, open source ... the list could go on and on.

Would you rather be associated with groups who are "true to their ideologies", or groups that are willing to bend to get things done?

Can we state that we choose to be associated with both types?

Would you rather be associated with groups who are "true to their ideologies", or groups that are willing to bend to get things done?

I find the question much too vague. But if that 'bending' is clearly contrary to the values a movement wants to be widely held, I don't see the point. If it's not contrary to them, that's another issue.

One issue is how to define 'flexibility'. In the case of animal rights, Peter Singer has welcomed the small animal welfare changes that McDonald's has made as great progress, whereas some in the "strict animal rights" camp have not only been sceptical of their efficiency but also criticized them on ethical grounds. Now, is it reasonable to say that Singer's attitude is more flexible, when his attitude directly follows from his utilitarian "ideology", instead of being about "forgetting that ideology for a moment"? I think that flexibility is the willingness to be less strict about one's ideology, and I also think that some criticism of inflexibility turns out to be criticism of the ideology itself. ('Tolerance' and 'flexibility' are logically similar.)

I find the question much too vague. But if that 'bending' is clearly contrary to the values a movement wants to be widely held, I don't see the point. If it's not contrary to them, that's another issue.

One issue is how to define 'flexibility'. In the case of animal rights, Peter Singer has welcomed the small animal welfare changes that McDonald's has made as great progress, whereas some in the "strict animal rights" camp have not only been sceptical of their efficiency but also criticized them on ethical grounds. Now, is it reasonable to say that Singer's attitude is more flexible, when his attitude directly follows from his utilitarian "ideology", instead of being about "forgetting that ideology for a moment"?

I would say he is indeed being flexible by praising a group for doing something that is better even though they are not where he wants them to be. His utilitarian nature is WHY he is being flexible, but he is still showing a willingness to work with others who don't agree with him to achieve small improvements.

I think that flexibility is the willingness to be less strict about one's ideology, and I also think that some criticism of inflexibility turns out to be criticism of the ideology itself. ('Tolerance' and 'flexibility' are logically similar.)

I do agree that SOME criticisms of inflexibility are indeed criticisms of the the ideology, but I think that there are many legitimate complaints. I feel the real problem is when opportunity is lost because people are unwilling to cooperate with society or other groups because of disagreements. Sometimes that might meen their goals get watered down, but often that is better than nothing happening at all (often, not always).

That may meen animal rights groups may have to give up some group willingly to hunting groups. Of course, there are limits, but most groups don't seem to try very hard to bend at all.

Personally, I prefer idealism to pragmatism.

:D

The Rev