To most of the world success is never bad. I remember how, when Hitler moved unchecked and triumphant, many honorable men sought and found virtues in him. And Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Vichy collaborated for the good of France, and whatever else Stalin was, he was strong. Strength and success-they are above morality, above criticism. It seems, then, that it is not what you do, but how you do it and what you call it. Is there a check in men, deep in them, that stops or punishes? There doesn't seem to be. The only punishment is for failure. In effect no crime is committed unless a criminal is caught.
In the pursuit of success, many individuals overlook morality, often justifying their actions based on the outcomes they achieve. Historical figures like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were admired by some because they demonstrated strength and success, regardless of their moral failings. The idea that results can overshadow ethical considerations suggests that society tends to reward power and accomplishment, casting a blind eye to the methods used to attain them.
This raises a critical question about human nature: is there an inherent moral compass that prevents wrongdoing? Based on Steinbeck's observations, it seems that the fear of failure is a stronger motivator than the fear of moral failure. As long as one remains unpunished, actions may be deemed acceptable, with true accountability reserved for those who falter. This reflection invites deeper contemplation on the ethics of ambition and the societal values surrounding success.