One thing what I’m not sure of is where the difference is between manipulation and being rebellious. Say, one person manipulates another person using fear, and I think it’s completely fine to call out the manipulator for an immoral behavior. But then there’s a situation when a person says something to another person that’s challenging and takes them out of their comfort zone, so the receiver of the message can unwisely rebel against that.
The reason why I’m genuinely curious is that I believe that morals follow the same ubiquitous path of the laws of nature, like our discovery of any natural sciences. If no mathematical fact is an island, why should there be moral islands?
I don’t think I have a right to define what’s good and bad, even for my own life. That’s why I observe all things around me, try to figure what makes most sense, and change my mind accordingly. One of the most difficult part here is to pay little loyalty to one’s own self in the past.
Whenever I hear a challenging thought addressed to me, I often don’t know if it’s a manipulative trick or the other person truly wants to help me. By default I try to question everything, and that leads often to no actions from my side.
I think that one should follow what they think is right proactively. Inaction is often a sign of double-mindedness, and that doesn’t help anyone.
Deliberate waiting is not an inaction. Fearful or indecisive waiting is a sign of inaction, I think.