Abhorrence of apartheid is a moral attitude, not a policy.

Feeling outrage isn't the same as fixing it

Most of us assume that disliking something deeply should automatically translate into fixing it. If we hate injustice, we'll fight injustice, right? But Heath's observation cuts deeper—he's pointing out that being repulsed by something and actually knowing what to do about it are two completely different things. You can feel genuine revulsion at cruelty or unfairness and still be uncertain about the best way forward, or even make things worse with poorly thought-out solutions.

This matters because it explains a lot of modern frustration. We feel intensely about problems—inequality, environmental destruction, political corruption—but that intensity doesn't automatically produce clear answers. In fact, the strongest moral feeling sometimes clouds judgment. We become so attached to our revulsion that we dismiss people asking practical questions as morally suspect, when really they're just asking what works. The person who wants to end poverty through direct charity, the person who prefers policy reform, and the person skeptical of government solutions might all genuinely abhor suffering. They just disagree on method.

The harder, less satisfying truth is that moral clarity is only the starting point. After that comes the messy work of thinking, compromising, testing, and accepting that good intentions guarantee nothing.