"I think we need to re-evaluate our gun policies. We can consider imposing stricter gun regulations without throwing out the spirit of the second amendment."
"Well, where does it end? If you outlaw a certain type of gun, or limit a magazine, that's all well and good in theory. All law abiding citizens follow that. What of the criminals? How are you going to enforce that law? Go house to house? You can't be so naive!"
Perhaps you've had a similar conversation in which you propose an idea that would objectively make the world safer or better overall only to have someone respond with an hyperbolic, dooms day what-if scenario that's ultimately one big red herring.. And it's concluded with 'you're just being naive'. When did thinking big picture become naive? When did proposing an idea become 'why don't you have a complete action plan fleshed out?' I feel this has become a popular tactic for people who see the world as black and white to dismiss positions that they disagree with. Why is this? When did 'being a realist' become a viable option? When did realists ever change the world?
I get tired of outlandish hypothetical situations being drummed up in response to perfectly rational observations or proposed solutions to serious societal problems. I've come to the conclusion that it's the last gasp of a failing argument. They can't dismiss the validity of the proposed policy, but they hold onto their preconceived notion of what's right and wrong. So they ask how you would enact said idea. This question is not without merit. Certainly, eventually, you need to come up with an actionable plan, but often times this is not the goal of the objection. The goal is to render the proposition as only being viable in some liberal, socialist, utopian, hippie commune. And it's summed up with that one word: naive.
The problem is laziness. Humans want a simple solution. The problem is, in our current society, we don't have the luxury of simple solutions. We are faced with complicated problems. Abortion, stem cell research, individual freedom vs. the greater good, gun control. These issues aren't solved by a quick glance and a one liner. They take real contemplation and real debate. It's what the proper application of ethics and morality are about. We don't get the answers from a book. We don't get the answers in an hour or a day. We don't get them from our friends. They take thought and they may require adjustments along the way. We should embrace the evolution of laws and accept that the road to the right answer is a long one. It's not easy and it shouldn't be. Would it be worth it if they were? To be a realist is to resign to the fact that there's nothing you can do. To be a realist is to know the right answer and give the wrong one in the name of expediency. To be a realist is to give up. The solution to complicated questions is to acknowledge that they aren't black and white. I would rather gradually obtain the correct answer through increments than to come to the wrong answer because it's the answer at hand. That type of thinking actually prolongs our journey to solving problems. Don't be afraid of solutions that require effort. There's an objectively right answer for every moral question. There has to be. One answer always provides a more positive outcome than the next. You may not have the ultimate answer now, but be 'naive', think big picture, and one day all of us will get there. But, certainly, for all our sake, don't be a realist.
