Can people who are noble in some aspect but immoral in others still be considered heroes?
Believe statement
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Disagree with Statement
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
If a totally disreputable scoundrel risked his life to rescue me from a certain death situation I, and I'm sure everyone around would, quite rightly regard him/her as a hero. A lot of decorated wartime heroes were immoral, barroom brawling, womanizing misfits who were condemned in 'civvy street' as piranha's. Side: Believe statement
Of course they can. Hero is not necessarily a title for a full life's work, it's usually attributable to a specific act. Funny true story. I have two infants and one of the CDs for music in our car is a Schoolhouse Rock song collection (from the educational songs for kids which used to air on TV over three decades ago). One of those is "Zero my Hero" and it introduces the song talking about how a hero may be from a famous battle, but it also may be a dog, or a little boy who knew the right thing to do. And then of course goes on to sing about the virtues of zero in math. Great song actually. Hey, if a dog, or a child, or the number 0 can be heroes then even a mafioso who one day saves a school bus of kids from crashing might be a hero, too, despite also being a hit man in his daily life. Side: Believe statement
Sure. It is a bit of a balancing act though and not an on/off switch. Some negatives appear too great to be overcome by an act of heroism redeeming a person. Of course it is a matter of perspective, hero to some might not be hero to all. But a hero with flaws can give hope and is easier for others to relate to. A 'hero' with flaws shows that it does not take some iconic bastion of heroism to make a positive change but that every day people can do these acts too. Side: Believe statement
Both of those qualities can swing from extreme to moderate. You would have to define noble, and immoral, and even hero. And by what measure of standard and to who is the audience?. The short answer is you can have noble qualities, and be in an immoral state, or live in immoral way, and one could be a hero true heroship for something merit worthy. But not giving out a hero status for being sensitive and neec a tophy, or for being openly immoral, or a trophy consolation prize hero crap that seems to be elevated in this wacked out generation. Side: Believe statement
The question has a variety of answers. Because all three have a variety of factors. My answer isn't wrong. Nor is it incomplete. The question asked poorly because it is open ended question, subjective to perception of the individuals answering. So the answers can't be equally debated, because it is undefined. The result: without defining it is like having many languages in a discussion, without understanding anyone else's language but your own. So I defined it, and answered with some basis of communicating my point of prespective for my answer. There are many standards of measure. All three can be applicable determining in one measuring in one circumstace, and may not be applicable by measuring another circumstance. The question is subject to standard of measure and to circumstance. All three can swing in extreme directions, so how would you answer it as in general? What is the act that is considered "heroic" What is the characteristics considered noble in the person considered for hero status? And What is the characteristic of immorality in the person. And how do each of these relate to the heroic act? And who is the audience viewing the heroic status. Example: A theif in a group of thieves. Thieves enter a mini-mart with intent to steal. Weapons and adrenaline they take hostages. It escalates and becomes threatening, one decides to protect life, over his intent to steal and goes against the group he started with, and he also happens to be in an affair. The one subdues his thieving group of friends, and saves the lives of the hostages. Is he a Hero? Noble? Immoral? To the law, and judge he is not a hero, although his actions may award him leniency. To the hostage he may be a hero. And in this determination his affair is not considered because whether he was a theif being a hero or a hostage being a hero, the affair isn't a determination in the circumstance. CNN and media may hail him a hero, but he is a theif, who made a better decission because he had more sensitivity to the lives of the hostages, or, maybe he just didn't want murder charges. So variables change the perception. And the answer is impossible to answer without more details. Side: Believe statement
|
The way it's worded, I don't believe that one good deed, though it may indeed be great, excuses other wrong deeds. I think someone is defined by their actions (as well as the intent of said actions), but just because there acts are considered noble by one standard, and immoral in others, makes them disqualified from hero-ship. While I'm certain this immoral person can do a selfless enough act to be considered an 'heroic act', I think a person will need to continuously commit acts of altruism to become worthy of a heroes title. Perhaps a good/bad deed equilibrium of sorts? Side: Disagree with Statement
|
