There is no standard answer to the dilemma of compromised principles. Moralists would argue that it is better to choose a noble death than living with compromised principles and awareness that these principles make other people suffer. Others would claim that it is better to live, even though someone suffered from your actions, than and dying. I relate myself to people who defend the second point of view and prefer life to death. Death is a way to escape suffering and people who compromised principles and caused harm to others do not deserve an easy release from the pangs of conscience.
Some philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, admit that people are flawed. Hence, mistakes and wrongdoings are a part of human nature. At the same time, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes that people are perfectible, meaning that the flaws could be eradicated. Therefore, in the context of compromised principles that harm others, it should be noted that it would be fair for a person to keep on living if he or she dedicates the rest of his life to atonement. It would be easier for a person who betrayed others to choose death because it will save him or her from the pang of conscience. However, living with a comprehension of what evil a person had done to others seems a fairer choice because it will make a person regret his or her actions.
In Millers (1953) play “The Crucible,” Abigale Williams accused Elizabeth Proctor of witchcraft because Elizabeth was the wife of John Proctor, whom Abigale loved. Ultimately, John was blamed for witchcraft and was hanged. In addition to that, Abigale stole Reverend Parriss money and ran away from the town. Probably, at the point of leaving Salem, she does not regret her actions. Nevertheless, later she will curse the day when she was dancing in the forest because that day destroyed the lives of numerous people. Still, these people passed away and were freed from suffering, whereas the memories of her guilt will torment Abigale all her life.
Reference
Miller, A. (1953). The crucible. Martin Beck Theatre.