If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

This is a great way of thinking. I agree that the world prospers much more from people helping each other out. Although, let us make sure we're on the same page as to the definition of the word, "actively," in this context. A solid understanding of the boundaries of this word might help this debate proceed more efficiently. Should we be using the word to mean that one would go out, when they have free time, and attempt to help make the world better, as so many great people have done? Or should we define this as any small act of kindness, such as helping out your friends and neighbors? I would certainly agree that small acts of kindness are always important, but when one commits such an act, are they necessarily thinking of making the world better? They might simply be acting out of sympathy or compassion for the person they're helping, but can we assume they desire justice for all? Also, you talk about physical retaliations and aggressive behavior. Do you mean to imply that this discord in our community would be a result of people not wanting to help each other? Although I can understand this view, I find I do not agree with it. Although I'm not sure this is what you mean to say, I'll assume, for now, that it is. I believe that, when individuals do not partake in being a part of their community--which they certainly do sometimes; If they didn't, imagine how many more people would be in line to vote on voting day, and attending parties, and all the other things that aren't necessary for an individual to attend--it creates less violence, not more. Because, as we who've been on the internet are all aware of, the world is a mixed batch. Those who shut themselves out of a community aren't necessarily bad people, or undeserving of a good life and world around them; they're merely less social, and possibly don't get along well with others. Those people do not effect the community. They only live their lives, and do not attempt to effect those of others. That means the people that actually try to change the world are less varied. Less varied--but not completely congruous with each other--is good. You can never move forward if everyone's opinion is crowding in. there would be even more people dissatisfied with the world. There are people, as I said, who carry on the primal way of life of helping others only when immediately able, and focusing primarily on their own life and survival. This is not their fault. It's an instinct, ingrained in us at birth. It's called survival of the fittest, and it's at least as important as safety in numbers, in the wild. We can't simply eliminate our basic instincts. It would be a terrible thing if we could, because many more people would commit suicide. Most of our desire to live comes from instincts like survival of the fittest. Of course, it's better to be one of the people who values justice and equality; I would have to be insane to argue against that. But how can we convict the people who don't? If we believe they don't deserve to live in a good world, then, in a way, we don't either. Another point I'd like to bring attention to is that there are people who are content with the world as it is now. When they wake up in the morning, they don't cast their minds to the war in Iraq, or the people starving in North Korea. They might know they exist, but they think of these problems as abstract terms. They simply can't comprehend the pain of others far away from them. Therefor, they live their lives only for themselves and their family/friends. Even the people that just don't care are necessary. The world would be completely different and, I believe, unbalanced without every type of person that inhabits it. Everyone contributes, whether they want to or not. The malicious, infamous people from the past have helped us shape our society today. By taking things to the extreme, they helped us to realize just how wrong those things were. For instance, Adolf Hitler's persecution of jews. But I seem to be digressing. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Do people who want to live in a good world have to actively do things to make the world better? And does a world with the MOST equality and morality require EVERYONE to be just and moral? That depends. Can we really say that a 'perfect' world is a good one? With the definition given, it sounds like it, but think back to all those utopian/distopian storylands. Although I believe this world is, in actuality, impossible, let us focus on what would happen if everyone was moral, with no greed whatsoever. We'd get no where in this capitalist society, where economic growth and prosperity depend on individual greed and a competitive atmosphere. Variance in people, and lack of help from others, both contribute to the challenges that we learn to overcome as a race. Although it is, as I've stated, vastly superior in an individual to be compassionate and charitable, it is not necessarily what should be in everyone.