In many situations of social choices, it is uncertain which direction is “progressive” and which is “regressive”, even if these adjectives could be objectively defined. Some examples will make it clear.

1. Economic sanctions. These are often advocated as an alternative to war, e.g. in reversing cross-border aggression under collective security. Yet economic sanctions have been deplored as harming mainly civilians, especially children and other vulnerable sectors of the population. In this way, economic sanctions can be the very opposite of humanitarian aid given to famine-stricken areas. We can specify that food and medical supplies should be exempt from sanctions, but this often does not prove to happen in practice, e.g. in sanctions against Iraq. Are we trying to do two opposite things under some conditions, which thus cancel each other? Yet economic sanctions are undoubtedly preferable to war. Or, on the other hand, are they the same as war, waged by other means?
2. Landmines. Under the rubric of non-offensive (i.e. purely defensive) defence, we used to advocate the use of landmines as a weapon that by its nature cannot be used for offensive purposes, but only for defence of home territory, triggered only if someone invades it. Now it appears that unexploded landmines left over after a war kill and maim civilians, especially children. Are even “purely defensive” weapons inadmissible? Are they even more repugnant than some “offensive” weapons – offensive in intent?
3. Globalization. This is the lofty aim of all internationalists and world federalists. We aim to unify the world because humankind is one nation and all are citizens of the one world. Yet in these days globalization is often deplored as creating a world ruled by “free trade” and multinational corporations, in which the interests of individual citizens and local communities are crushed or at least marginalized. Perhaps the solution lies in globalization from below rather than globalization from above; or in proper application of the principle of subsidiarity, under which problems are solved at the lowest appropriate level, though some problems require global solutions.
4. Old growth forests and forest fires. On the one hand we are told that old-growth forests are valuable and must be preserved from logging. On the other hand we are told that forest fires are nature’s way of renewing forests that have grown too old in their succession, and that it is healthy to start over again. Whom are we to believe? Or are these two different situations and I merely misunderstand?
5. Family cohesion vs. nepotism. The family is the smallest and tightest social unit and should be given preference in our choices, as is derived from actual social practice as well as from the theory of socio-biology (favouring our genes, or aiming at “extended fitness”). Yet when government officials appoint their sons and daughters, nieces and nephews to government posts, this is called nepotism and corruption and frowned upon. I think that the distinction is that we should not practice “filia” (family loyalty) when we are in the service of a larger unit, such as the state. This should also apply to the case of U.N. officials and peace-keepers, who should forget thair national allegiance and serve only the world community.
6. Hydro-electric dams. These are an example of the use of solar energy in the production of electricity, since they utilize the differences in the altitude of bodies of water, originally created by the Earth’s water cycle. As such, hydro-plants do not contribute to global warming, as they use no fossil fuels. Yet environmentalists often protest against large-scale hydroelectric dams, because their construction disrupts the local environment and its human and animal occupants. We need to consider the costs and benefits of alternative methods of generating energy, or the costs and benefits of making do with less energy.
7. Struggle. The word conjures visions of armed violence, but this is not necessarily so. It could mean political struggle, by lobbying to influence government or not re-electing the government if it does not yield to our demands. It could mean non-legal though nonviolent struggle, i.e. civil disobedience, if the above legal methods fail. But even in the absence of violence, is struggle desirable? Is it not better to put up with minor injustices in order to live a tranquil life? Unfortunately, minor injustices have a way of escalating into major ones. But conflict hurts (e.g. friendships may suffer, families can be torn apart), even if not physically hurting. Where lies the proper balance between resistance and non-resistance?
8. Crisis. By the well-known Chinese dictum, it is a composite of danger and opportunity. Whecher or not we like or detest crisis depends on whether we are risk-takers or risk-avoiders. In any case, we do not usually get to choose whether or not we are plunged into a crisis. The original meaning was the point in an acute illness when it is decided whether a patient will live or die – the peak of decision. It means the same for the world. Some find it exhilarating to live at a hinge of history. Others agree with the old Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times”.

There could be more examples of moral and existential ambiguities. Why do peace activists usually favour “choice” in matters of abortion, while opponents of abortion usually do not oppose war or capital punishment’? Who is really “pro-life”? Why do we often take a dim view of government, while deplorlng its absence in “failed states” like Somalia’? Why do we deplore racist and sexist terms, and then cringe at demands to be “politically correct”? There are some answers but distinctions need to be carefully drawn.’

We live immersed in ambiguities, as we always did. There 1S no substitute for clear and discriminating thought in place of following seemingly clear but misleading slogans.