(I'm looking for holes in my logic, ty)

An Argument for Apathy
First, I’d have to care. Assuming I cared, I would then have to identify and understand the problem, followed closely by finding a reason to continue to care. Let’s say for the sake of this discussion that I have somehow found within myself sufficient motivation to stay interested. Now, there must be some point, some foreseeable outcome or conclusion that will justify my emotional commitment. What if, after I have made the commitment, and after I have taken all of the prerequisite steps, what if it were all for naught? Would it not have been a colossal waste of time and effort? Welcome to the world of apathy.
Apathy, by strict definition, means a lack of feeling or emotion, or a lack of interest or concern. This definition doesn’t attribute any reasoning for the existence of the apathy, but most people willingly assume that the only possible motivation for apathy has to be an irresponsibly gross lack of compassion. A person must have found the capacity to reason out an issue, and must have chosen to rise above it, before that person will be capable of understanding how the apathetic can be a caring, responsible member of society, and yet remain apathetic.
The apathetic are often accused of pacifism, which by definition is impossible. A pacifist is one who opposes war, which means he has chosen a side in the issue. The apathetic person probably has weighed the issue, and elected to not choose one side over another. There are those who would argue that by not taking a side on the issue, that the person has taken a side, but this is not true either. The truly apathetic person believes that the existence of the war is immaterial, and by extension that his own survival of the conflict, is also of little consequence.
Would this person not run from the sound of gunfire? Yes, of course he would. Would this person not grieve at the loss of his loved ones? We would hope so, for to do otherwise in either of these instances would be unnatural. Would the apathetic person rush to the aid of some helpless person who is being victimized or abducted? Probably. Preservation of life, both his own and the lives of those he loves, is a fundamental instinct, and defending the defenseless, is a fundamental responsibility of society.
Conscientious apathy frees a person from energy draining and time consuming involvement in the superficial conflicts of society, allowing the person to focus on the things in life that are truly worthwhile; family, friends, and the enjoyment of life. As a stark contrast to social and political apathy, the conscientiously apathetic person can still recognize and embrace personal duty. The conscientiously apathetic person is often capable of granting loved ones the freedom they need in which to grow, while also being capable of restricting those things that would prove more harmful than beneficial. This is particularly true anywhere the conscientiously apathetic person has a personal responsibility to guide and nurture. Even in this the attitude of the conscientiously apathetic person can have an impact, because it is sometimes needful to be able to allow nature to take its course, in order for certain lessons to be learned.
The conscientiously apathetic are not lazy. Okay, maybe some of them are, but my point is that apathy isn’t necessarily about laziness. Before one can be apathetic, one must at the very least be informed of the problem; otherwise they would simply be ignorant. If the person had no knowledge of the problem, then there would be no subject over which to be apathetic.
Knowledge of the existence of any given problem doesn’t necessarily give the conscientiously apathetic person sufficient motivation to weigh the respective sides either. In the 2004 American Presidential elections, virtually every person in America over the age of eighteen knew that the only realistic choices were Bush, and Kerry. The common man, with no particular crusade to either promote or defend, was given no reason to care who won. As luck would have it, the self-promoting guy who was willing to say anything to get elected, defeated the self-promoting guy who was willing to say anything to get elected.
Since one must be informed, one must have, at some point, been motivated to come to an understanding of the problem. Once having gained sufficient understanding, one must have ruminated sufficiently, at least to the persons’ own satisfaction, to be able to conclude that apathy was in fact the proper stance for them to take on that issue.
Normally, whenever a person decides what his position is on a particular point, his position dictates what further action his belief will require. If the person is in favor of something, the person is required in good conscience to promote it. If the person is against something, then the person is morally compelled to fight it. Throughout history men have lived rich lives, and died happy, having found an issues to be for, or against, and never again concerning themselves with issues beyond their chosen cause.
The conscientiously apathetic are not afforded this luxury. Having no designated cause, they soon find that some new issue has reared its ugly head seeking to disrupt their peaceful lives. More often than not, it is brought to the apathetic person’s attention by some crusading zealot, who is upset that the apathetic person is not upset by whatever circumstances that the zealot feels compelled to be upset about. Rare is the zealot crusader who doesn’t feel that it’s his duty to enlighten, and to recruit, what the zealot sees as the obviously uninformed bystander.
As with any journey, a crusade must start somewhere, and since the majority of crusades involve some aspect of society, one must start with the chief cornerstone of society, the individual. If the individual correctly assesses how they themselves feel about an issue, as well as why they feel compelled to become engaged in any given conflict, they may find, as the conscientiously apathetic usually find, that the issue may not require their involvement after all. The Christian Bible says, “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.” We cannot correctly judge that which is without, until we first correctly judge that which is within. Having addressed and reconciled issues within, we invariably find that there are fewer issues needing to be addressed without.
The transcendence to conscientious apathy isn’t a new concept either. Judith A Berling, in her article entitled “Taoism, or the Way,” says, “Throughout Chinese history, people weary of social activism and aware of the fragility of human achievements would retire from the world and turn to nature.” The first law of nature is to follow the path of least resistance, and foolish is the man who rallies against the torrent and rails against the storm.
Crusaders must perpetuate the cause they fight for, in order to continue justifying their existence. Yasser Arafat, after years of terrorism, was finally brought to the bargaining table. He was offered a settlement guaranteeing him virtually everything he had been fighting for, yet he failed to accept it. To accept the settlement would have ended his crusade, and since his crusade was his life, it would have ended his reason for living. For his own survival, he continued his terrorist ways until his death. Unlike Yasser Arafat, the conscientiously apathetic person’s life isn’t defined by some vain attempt to change the world.
The true crusader should not only understand the effective realm of a persons influence, but should also understand the most profitable way to impact that realm. Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist Monk, said, “Smiling is very important. If we are not able to smile, then the world will not have peace. It is not by going out for a demonstration against nuclear missiles that we can bring about peace. It is with our capacity of smiling, breathing, and being peace that we can make peace.” The conscientiously apathetic person understands the futility of symbolic gestures, and find’s better things to do.
Reflecting back on the mistakes in my life, I see some of the many lessons I’ve learned. My memory fails when I try to number the times I thought to myself “Next time that happens I’ll know what to do.” Yet those things that I have conquered within myself, never again invaded my life.
There have been times in my life when the passion of another has caused the passion within me to ignite and to erupt into a full-blown conflict, thereby dragging me down into the fiery pit of contention. There have also been times when I’ve kept my peace within, and the conflict without has died an isolated death. The passion of the zealous crusader must find fertile ground in which to sow it’s seeds of passion, or the passion will die. The passion of the apathetic is in the strength of their inner peace, and this peace needs simply to be peace, in order to spread peace.
A war will end when none are left to kill, or to be killed, either through attrition, or because peace has come to the surviving warriors. A war begins when one wants this, and another wants that. In the natural order, things are what they are, and neither wanting, nor not wanting, matters. The apathetic person understands this natural balance, and tries not to interfere. In accepting what is, a person finds peace, and if all men find their natural peace, then there will be no more crusades, no more conflicts, and no more war.