I love the smell of Ethics in the morning

There's a guy named Scanlon, and he says "the contractualist account of moral wrongness refers to principles ‘which no one could reasonably reject’ rather than to principles ‘which everyone could reasonably accept’".
Basically, if there's no reason for you to rationally (i.e. logically) reject something, then it must be ok.

“Consider a principle under which some people will suffer sever hardships, and suppose that these hardships are avoidable. That is, there are alternative principles under which no one would have to bear comparable burdens. It might happen, however, that the people on whom these hardship fall are particularly self-sacrificing, and are willing to accept the burdens for the sake of what they see as the greater good of all. We would not say, I think, that it would be unreasonable for them to do this. On the other hand, it might not be unreasonable for them to refuse these burdens, and hence, not unreasonable for someone to reject a principle requiring him to bear them. If this rejection would be reasonable, then the principle imposing these burdens is put in doubt, despite the fact that some particularly self-sacrificing people could (reasonably) accept it.”

So its possible that the people under the burdens could be alleviated of them, reasonably. If it was unavoidable that someone suffers, then it might be reasonable to convince someone their burden was necessary. But that is not the case in this example, say that whatever burdens exist could be lifted. It would not be unreasonable to reject the burdens, but it would also not be unreasonable for them to continue to bear them by choice.

Because there are ALTERNATIVE principles, and the burden in the example is not inevitable, you still have good reason to reject it. The good reason is that we can avoid it. You can be in a position of having good reasons to both reject and accept a principle. But what really matters is whether or not we have a good reason to REJECT, and not necessarily accept something. If you CAN find a reason to reject, even though you accept, that is what matters.

You endure things only because there is no alternative, there is no way for you to rationally reject something or have an alternative. Just because some stoic wants to or is able to endure something doesn’t mean that you need to, if you CAN reject it.

Welcome to my weekday mornings.