How do you feel about people who would never compromise on their

their god-given right

Depends entirely on what the principles in question are.

admirable, even if they are bad principles
too many people fold, thats why corruption exists
more people should stick to their guns

People that are either

a. have principles that are completely perfect without flaws and all they need to do is act upon them to see them in fruition

or

b. complete fools that don't really have their ideals grounded in reality and will probably kill people for no good reason and undermine their very principles to others with their actions. It's ok to stand up for yourself and what you believe in (in case it is right) but if your ideals clash with reality you should have at least have some compromise (in case it is wrong).

>>2898925
corruption can exist even if you stick to your guns if you have self-interested ideals

>>2898925
What is admirable about having bad principles? There's a difference between being uncompromising and being stubborn.

>>2898903
Rorschach was a coward too afraid to live with the fact that he could be wrong and that his principles were flawed.

Never compromising can be respectable but equally cowardly and unnecessarily prideful.

>>2898978
Bad principles are only principles with which you disagree.

>>2898999
Rorschach was the only moral and brave person in a cast full of cowardly faggots who went along with Adrian's plan because it was the path of least resistance

>>2899014
This. Even though he was the one who felt the most fear, he had the courage to stick to his guns and do what he felt was right.

>>2898903
That which does not bend will break.
And when you are dead, you are useful to no one.

>>2899005
That's a reasonable position, but why are we discussing finding bad principles admirable to begin with then, when the OP never brought it up?

If someone has a principle I disagree with, I'm not going to find their absolute, complete assurance in their argument admirable. The man who has everything figured out is a fool.

>>2898903
Nightowl is the real hero because he alone sacrificed everything for other people, while Rorscharch and Ozymandias were selfish in their motives and unwilling to let go of what they had- their ideals and belief in their own superiority.

>>2899040

Doesn't mean his principles were right.

Intelligence > Intentionality

Without intelligence, you have people with steel integrity digging roads to damnation and irrelevance.

>>2900232
CONT.

aka the "sin" of pride. Whereupon the strongest of angels tries to secure an "easy" road to paradise ("Just mean it!"). Without realizing that denying the figure of tragedy* only leads to more tragedy.

How do you rebel against the creator of Behemoth and Leviathan without being capable of a similar feat?

Badly.
* - (Problem-space mined by moral agent leads to decisions and unavoidable collisions with other sorts of "good").

Being a principled person in general is a very good thing, but people are inherently too flawed to cling to their own preconceived notions of right and wrong no matter what happens.

If your principles are proven to be flawed, they need to be updated to correct the flaws as best you can.

>>2898903

1. "ARMAGEDDON" IN THIS PHRASE IS A MISNOMER BY MISUSE OF SYNECDOCHE; ARMAGEDDON IS A PLACE, NOT AN EVENT.

2. ETHICOMORAL RESOLUTENESS IS INDICATIVE OF HONOUR ONLY IF THE ETHOS IS NOBLE, OTHERWISE, IT IS INDICATIVE OF WICKEDNESS.

>>2899068
nightowl is a flaccid cuck

>>2901665
Didn't he cuck Dr. Manhattan?

Naive, never have human principles ever been static historically. Just look at how the interpretation of Christianity changed throughout the ages. Those that don't change are left behind. It's best to have a more taoist outlook on your principles, to go with the flow, and let them evolve

>>2898903
Righteous and strong willed.

Regardless of whether they're wrong or right, they're righteous and most people will find it admirable.

>>2901749
>Regardless of whether they're wrong or right, they're righteous...

?

>>2901754
Righteous doesn't mean objective right. It means morally just or virtuous.

>>2901769

1. AND?

SO, IF YOU ARE MEANING "WRONG", AND "RIGHT", AS "ERRONEOUS", AND "ACCURATE", RESPECTIVELY, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE SENTENCE THAT I QUOTED IN MY PREVIOUS POST? HOW DO ERRONEOUSNESS, AND ACCURACY, FACTOR WITHIN THE ETHICOMORAL CONTEXT OF THE TOPIC —WHY MENTION THEM AT ALL?

2. ETHICOMORAL RESOLUTENESS DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL RIGHTEOUSNESS —QUOD VIDE THE SECOND POINT OF MY FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD:

>>2901654

>>2898903
>"Admirable...BUT MISHTAKEN"

Literally how I feel about Rorschach. There is merit in abiding with ones firmest principles, but all men must know when to change. Rorschach did not know how to change, and for that, he died.

I think living by a set of principles is sort of childish honestly. I think it's much better to be fluid and open in your morality while being careful not to let yourself fall too far away from doing the right thing.

>>2901875
At that point you have no foundation for morality. If your morals and ethics change, whats to say what you say will be relevant/truthful the next day?

People who have no foundations are unfortunately the majority. Whatever people say have no meaning and thus should be taken as a grain of salt. However those with a strong principle, a strong foundation will always stick to their words and back it up. Therefore whatever they say has meaning to it.

But I do agree, in our current world, having those strong foundation is bit of a disadvantage. Not only would you be taken advantage of by the mass, but you will also be fucked by the mass.

>>2898925
>admirable, even if they are bad principles
i fucking hate this meme. of course bad principles are arbitrary but there's no reason sticking to recognized abhorrent principles should be seen as a good thing