Wrong is wrong, even if everyone does it, even if nobody dares speak against it.
Right is right, even if no one is doing it, even if nobody dares support it, even if naysayers say yes, but ….
But this is not what current ethics are preaching.
Modern ethics dislike the firmness and inconvenience of principles, what is right or wrong, and instead they call for a more flexible and convenient way, the “practical” way of settling things. Say in a two-party conflict, they seek outcomes that, irrespective of who is right or wrong, can accommodate both sides so that both will appear to come out of the dispute with some kind of benefits euphemistically called ‘’winning’’.
At the level of national disputes, for example, if an aggressor invades another country (usually a weaker), the so-called ethical solution will be sought not by demanding that the invader be expelled out of the other country’s territory, but by allowing the invader to retain his gains upon agreeing not to expand further. The afflicted side must, of course, accept the new forced status quo and will receive assurances of avoidance of further escalation and losses. Both parties, declare the ethics, “have won”: Gains for the invader, and no further losses for the afflicted.
The laws of the jungle: The stronger takes it all, or rather not quite all; arrangements are made to permit the beleaguered victim to retain more than what its power could protect by forsaking part of its lawful rights.
The silence of the herd: Those not attacked or out of the conflict consider their selves as outsiders and become silent bystanders. They argue that by their silence, they are preserving the bridges of communication and by their appeasements [...]