Why nothing should be changed and no injustices rectified, ever

Finnish version not available.

The following is sarcasm. Okay? Okay.

You might think there’s something in the world that needs changing, some situation that is hurting someone and needs to be made better, but think again. It’s best to keep things the way they are. There are several reasons.

  • Change takes effort. Why bother? As anyone not hurt by the current state of affairs can attest, it doesn’t really matter all that much. Don’t we have real issues to discuss, like my own smaller problems?
  • Someone’s going to lose their job. Depending on the issue, it’s very likely, at least. Stop polluting nature, or raising animals in bad conditions to be killed, or selling cigarettes, or going to pointless wars? What about all the people working with those things? Are you really going to say that people making their living doing something harmful should find another job? Would you really rather take a problematic transition period than continue doing harm indefinitely? If our economy is built around producing harm, obviously it should be kept that way.
  • It’s economically harmful (and what else matters?) Usually there’s profit to be made in unethical ways, and that justifies everything in the prevailing ideology. Why, it even increases the GNP if we do something that makes people sick or causes some other trouble, because then more economic exchange will take place to repair the damage.
  • It may look like a bad thing to the victims, but the people doing it have their own point of view. Like fox hunting; people really saw it as just a bit of fun and wondered why some spoilsports started screaming about “cruelty to animals” or something. Whose perception of the situation should count more: those of the ones getting profit or just fun out of the current situation, or those severely hurt by their actions? The answer should be obvious.
  • It hurts the privileged people. After all, the situations you’d want to change often involve someone benefitting at someone else’s expense, like making more profit out of workers kept in poor conditions or automatically having a better social standing than the members of some other group. So if you improve the lot of those others, those who were already better off are going to lose some of their advantages. It’s a zero-sum game… well, not really, because a more equitable society could be better overall, have a greater overall “sum” so to speak, but it still takes away something the privileged people have and, again, do you really want them to make a small sacrifice to help those worse off greatly?
  • It’s just natural. The way things are now is probably there because it’s God’s plan or implanted in our genes or something. It’s not like anyone has ever argued that culture affects these things, or that we consider natural those things we are used to.
  • It makes us uncomfortable. Like, we’d have to adjust to change and admit that we’ve done something wrong or passively benefitted from an oppressive system and stuff like that. Obviously, this is worse than the actual so-called problem, and we should not go there.
  • Doing anything is always risky. If we try to fix things, we might end up making them worse. So then, instead of a situation known to be bad, you’d have a situation that might be bad. Obviously, the average expected outcome in the latter case is worse.
  • People are not going to agree to it. Like, I’m not one of those people, but there are some who will resist change, which is why I resist change.
  • Things should be this way because they are this way. This often used argument is such an elementary piece of logical/moral reasoning that it requires no explanation.

Sarcasm off: Yes, there can be good arguments in a give situation in some of these lines. But as the title says, they could be used against everything.