>>14069131This is a question of deontological ethics as much as utilitarian value.
Let's say for everything that follows, you'd never have to fear repercussions. Would you rob some random stranger just because your city has a high crime rate, even if you don't need the money? Would you kick a dog or wild fox just because animals suffer by the billions at the hands of humans, anyway? Would you throw your garbage into a beautiful stream near you just because plastic/trash pollution is a huge issue? All of these little acts amount to nothing, compared to the bigger picture. So why do you -- or someone that regards himself not as "evil" -- not do it?
Besides, if enough people change something, a change will be effected. And this is a linear relation. You don't need to wait for some magical point of sudden efficacy.
