It’s important to separate the plan from the public advocacy of the plan. A person might internally be fully aware of the tradeoffs of a plan, while being unable to publicly acknowledge them, because coming out and publicly saying “<powerful group> wouldn’t do as well under our plan as they would under other plans, but we think it’s worth the cost to them for the greater good” will generally lead to righteous failure, do you want to fail righteously? To lose the political game but to be content knowing that you were right and they were wrong and you lost for ostensibly virtuous reasons?
Can you give an example in the real world? (Prefer historical examples if you dont wanna be too controversial) Both your comments are abstract so I’m unclear what you have in mind.
It’s kinda complicated, I cant answer a blanket yes or no. There are hypothetical situations where I might advocate such a plan yes.
Also I want more info on how this connects to my comment.
It’s important to separate the plan from the public advocacy of the plan. A person might internally be fully aware of the tradeoffs of a plan, while being unable to publicly acknowledge them, because coming out and publicly saying “<powerful group> wouldn’t do as well under our plan as they would under other plans, but we think it’s worth the cost to them for the greater good” will generally lead to righteous failure, do you want to fail righteously? To lose the political game but to be content knowing that you were right and they were wrong and you lost for ostensibly virtuous reasons?
Can you give an example in the real world? (Prefer historical examples if you dont wanna be too controversial) Both your comments are abstract so I’m unclear what you have in mind.