The reason why people would always want not to do the right things is when the government corrupt , it is easy to do things that are not right because it is already known that when people goes against the law , the law can't hold them responsible because money can be use to settle everything to go free from receiving any punishment.
there are different reasons.
when you are the victim/witness of someone elses bad actions. there are two options.
a. want that actions stopped.
b. join that action and take advantage yourself
when the action doesnt present itself as having a punishment or has not harmed you personally. you are more likely to follow B.
when it has harmed you and there is a punishment you are more likely to follow A
when governments are corrupt. and you can see they can be bribed but you personally have not been incarcerated for a government action against you. you are more likely to do similar crimes and bribe the cops to leave you alone, thus reinforcing your morals to disappear and be more blatant in your criminal acts yourself
however if the government are strict. and there are punishments. you are less likely to become a criminal. as the risk of punishment is high and the chance of escaping punishment is low
..
its not just about educating, entertaining, distracting kids with things to do to teach them morals and right/wrong. its also about the society of what is tolerable and what can be done to prevent/or get away with a crime
EG if stealing food from a retailer had no consequence. the shelves would be empty even by moral people as they would not see it as a crime and think that food is a human right that deserves to be free.
even moral people can find justification to treat things that can be considered crimes elsewhere as moral.
take relationships.
some regions think that separating women and preventing them from flirting/dating/courting men until they are adults is moral. and teenage flirting/dating is immoral.
(using the 2 options above.. woman want A(it to stop). men want B(join in and subjugate women into hiding))
where as other regions think separating the genders by threat is immoral and teen flirtation is freedom and morally good.
take abortions and life support machines.(in a pro-life US state)
some think defending the right of life to keep the unviable body alive, that cannot self sustain and requires a support system (machine or pregnant mother) is the right of life and should continue no matter what the next of kin/pregnant mother wants/decides.
(men that cant get pregnant where the question of abortion doesnt affect them personally want B(ban abortions).. women that are at risk of unwanted pregnancy because it can affect them want A(allow abortions))
(in a free choice US state)
some think that the standard of life where the next of kin should decide when/if its time to detach the unviable body from the support(machine or pregnant mother) based on the chances of a good/bad life the body might have and how that supported life might limit the chances of a good life for the next of kin.
(those that never personally experienced this think the ease answer is keep them alive, they might become self sustainable.. those that have experienced it may decide its for the best to end the live out of compassion, to end the torture it may get if it continued)
after all IF you (hypothetical person) are a pro-lifer. the world should send you all the elderly, comatose patients, premature babies, etc. for you (hypothetical person) to house feed and maintain.. after all, you want all these lives to continue, right? so you manage it. and no you (hypothetical person) cant decline the offer, you (hypothetical person) are a pro-lifer, you (hypothetical person) have to accept. no choice, right?
..
what im trying to say is. different regions have different 'morals' and definitions of right/wrong on many subjects.
you can try to teach these morals. but if there is no consequences to the bad stuff your society has pegged as being bad. people will create their own moral reason to think its acceptable.
EG. murder. many americans think killing is a moral right. EG someone enters your house to steal.. a petty item worth $20. they believe its their right to kill someone for $20, due to invasion of property.
on the flip side. just displaying a gun makes a witness fear his life. where the witness then becomes a murderer by defending himself from a threat of just seeing a gun(cops main excuse to kill a suspect).
(yep egg and chicken.. americans allowed guns but cops can shoot someone showing their gun)
in the days of the wild west. yea let everyone shot each other.. no consequence. no second thought. no law. where if you shoot someone obviously they died before they shot you, so you get to live, and you get to continue living free.. no consequence
but in modern times. there needs to be consequences. where if you shot someone you need to be punished for that. where by if you are witness to a gun. you dont automatically just shoot.. instead you think about the possible consequences. such as possibility of you being in prison for a 'bad shoot' and so you instead take other actions. like hide, run. call in backup. try to disarm. hand them your wallet and car keys and bid them a good day.. anything but just shoot..
..
now lets take that cop vs patriot analogy..
the 'right thing' well patriots have their right to have a gun, their right to defend themselves against a militia(cops). .. the cops 'right thing' is to defend himself. as he is an officer doing a job and does not deserve to die for just answering a call from 911 dispatcher
the smart thing:
patriots stop waving your guns around like idiots. thinking its a flag.
cops, stop shooting people just for having a gun.
both sides. THINK and be smart
smarter option. no one have guns
