Why "Live and Let Live" Doesn't Work

In general, I have a "live and let live" kind of attitude, but that doesn't really work for two unfortunate reasons.

First, it's not really moral. Sure, I'm fine with people making their own choices, but if those choices lead to misery (their own or anyone else's), and if there's any chance that my warnings will prevent or reduce some of that misery, I have to try. I acknowledge that it's ultimately their decision, but if I know they're going down the wrong path, and if I don't do everything in my power to try to convince them to turn around, that (to a certain extent) is kind of on me.

Second, others agree with the first reason. Not everyone is willing to "live and let live." There are people who are wrong but who believe that they're right, and some of those people consider it their moral obligation to convince others to see things from their point of view. I acknowledge that I may be one of those people, which is part of why I generally would rather live and let live (that, and I'm not fond of confrontations or heated debates), but as long as some dangerously wrong people are trying to convince others to be just as wrong as they are, I have to try to stop them.

We can only "live and let live" if everyone in this society agrees to disagree, which isn't going to happen, but even if it could, it wouldn't be kind. I owe it to everyone to reduce the amount of evil in the world, especially when so many other people are calling evil good and good evil. I have to join the debates (as much as I'd rather not) because, if I don't, too much evil will go unopposed, and too much good will get squashed.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what the opposition believes as well.

Hopefully, a well-reasoned, non-heated discussion of important topics will result in more kindness and less misery. I know it's not likely, but it would be morally wrong not to try.