Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Most people don't jump from acting ethically to accepting work on that is obviously problematic. What actually happens is a long series of small, trivial compromises and other deviations that eventually become normalized[1].

Humans make mistakes; it isn't possible to live the "ideal monk" life. The real question is how small problems are handled? Compromising when the problem isn't a "big enough" ethical problem inevitably[2] pushes that boundary back in a cycle of normalized small, easily avoided deviances. Instead, if a hard line is taken against small problems when they are still small, a lot of larger problems can be avoided.

[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60

> Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential".

Not seeing the distinction here. If you're an idealist the way hueving indicated and don't live as a monk, you're necessarily compromising on your values every day. And not on trivial or inconsequential things either, since you could easily donate to a variety of non-trivial causes.

What you're suggesting just sounds like reflexive goalpost-moving: the compromises I make are okay, the compromises others make are not.

Morals never serve individually. They serve to facilitate a social environment that favors a group to effectively work as a team. The reality of this is sure to be rife with contradictions, especially at individual scale, but somehow they effort is not contradictory if we consider the madness of a society erased of it’s morals. The challenge of this contradiction can be overcome through conviction and forgiveness alone. It’s essentially the scientific argument for religion. I would like to think nobody would say this is easy, but many people do say it’s easy. It’s not. It’s nearly impossible, but humans have done it time and time again.

What kicked off this whole chain was a discussion on whether a particular individual's decision was moral or not.

"This ideology is impractical/contradictory but still effective in a group" is a potential valid point to make in another context, but irrelevant to what we were specifically discussing here.

No, it's not about living as a monk, it's about not compromising when things really matter.

Refusing to work for a defense contractor has a real long-term impact because you are depriving them of your labor. Working for a defense contractor but not on specific projects is meaningless because they still profit from you and support the military.

> No, it's not about living as a monk, it's about not compromising when things really matter.

If you cut back on living expenses, you could give thousands every year to hungry kids or the environment or [insert good cause here]. Those are all things that really matter. Especially over the course of many years, you could make a real difference. You don't get to handwave away this point just because it's inconvenient to your argument.

You're trying to find a loophole in your own logic to excuse your own behavior that violates your self-proclaimed values. I get that nobody likes cognitive dissonance, but it's quite obvious you're not being internally consistent here.