Words are an abstarct medium. They are as opposed to deeds uncompromising and absolute. Reality has to make a compromise, because one never knows what the deed of another person will lead to. Will it be good or bad in its consequence? Because one can never be a clairvoyant, it is impossible to hinder anybody from doing anything, although I would say that it is definitely wrong- becase I do not know it for sure. On the other hand, when using words, I can use them as an absolute medium. I should use words to show those who do evil that they do evil. They either know it, and could be persuaded not to do it, or they do not, any via talking to them I show them that what they do is bad. In reality, I would not hinder any person from doing something bad, although I would try to persuade not to do that. In words, I can hypothetically say that I would not stand any, be it even the smallest evil. in reality, I would make a compromise, but in words, one can be uncompromisingly and absolutely good – avoid all evil. I would not let anybody hurt himself or other, even if I had to use restrictive power. Hypothetically, Sophie´s choice, would be an impossible choice – I cannot do any little evil – choosing among children which should survive would always contatin a certain degree of compromise, and thus would not be absolute. In reality, I would rather save one child, did a compromise. In reality, I would try to to persuade a an obese person not to eat so much, but I would not dare to stop someone from doing so. In words, I can be absolute, I can be sure that when acting according to my conscience I can never make anything wrong – by hindering an obese person from eating too much – more than one need. In reality I would not risk my life to save someone from a murderer, in words, it is absolutely good to sacrificie my own life, because Good is always more important than my life. In reality I would not save a suicide if he would not listen to me, In words one should save everybody from doing evil anything and everything notwithstanding. Hypothetically I would talk to a murderer not to murder anybody, but hindering him from doing so now, would not hinder him from doing so in the future. In reality it is reasonable and honest to endager one´s life for saving others. It is all about words. Words can change someone from inside, outside change – a jail for example would not do it. Words are ultimately comprehensimble and translatable – not experience, but words that show and say what to do and what not to do. If I know that an alcoholic has a free choice and still wants the bottle, it is not useful to hinder him from doing so, but if he is addicted, his free choide is clouded and giving him the bottle is detrimental to him and generally wrong. If he understands that it is wrong and still cannot help himself to refrain from doing so, he need another help, not a free will to do what he wants, or rather is compelled to do. Words can be used an absolute tool for changing, because in words the intention can be absolutely good, but deed are not absolutely good and therefore require a compromise.