What I mean is, do you essentially picture your vision of an ideal society, and then work backwards and ask what rules or principles would be necessary to make that the outcome? Or do you imagine your ideas of right and wrong, the role of government, the role of social norms, etc first, and then 'press play' on them in a sense, and see what society comes out and just accept the result as the byproduct of those principles?
Are right and wrong, the role of the State, the role of cultures, the responsibilities of the individual, and so on ideas you can imagine in their ideal form in abstract, independent from any specific implementation, or are they tools one uses to get the outcome they want, and if they do not achieve that outcome, you change or modify the tools so that you do get the outcome you want?
I just struggle to believe anyone can be truly motivated without it leading to any action, even if that action is just constantly trying to plan a way out.
Hence fighting for the right outcome is the only proof of belief in the principles I actually put stock in. And why I felt zero surprise when the Dali Lama turned out be telling little boys to suck his tongue behind closed doors.
For example, an attempted mugging by a soyboy.
If you very much believe in nonviolence you could immediately hand over your wallet, or you could kill the mugger preventing future violence. Both are evidence of strongly held principles, differing only in how much you want the world to conform to them.
In my case I just said "no" and kept walking. I didn't have that extreme view or the strong desire to fix the problem.