Conflicting views

So in my religious education classroom of yesterday we debate about morality. My teacher showed us a little text she had on the time, it's call "The Personal Dimension of Morality":

This is the text she gave on a test.

 

In counter:

"There is, however, no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. … The notion of right and wrong is a human device. Furthermore, all things made by men are made for a purpose, and the only standard by which a man-made thing can be judged is according to how well it fulfills the purpose for which it was made. … All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at." ~ Ludwig von Mises

 

May, it's not that simple.

Even if all of the parents were free of genetic disorders, the code for a disease could still be in their recessive genes somewhere.
Besides, Hitler's reasons were a bit selfish. He killed millions upon millions of innocent people, children and adults, and caused the second World War, which in itself killed millions of poeple worldwide.

In the beginning the Germans may have seen him as a hero, but even they realized that he was a monster after a certain point.

 

That's why It would take at least 3 generations to relieve everyone of it... <.<' and I never said he wasn't evil but people would'a noticed it after a while anyways and others would'a taken control <.< then the purpose Hitler told them about to purify everyone would happen... I never said I was for it because of all the people that had to die just I'm giving the example of wouldn't he be a hero in the future once everyone was pure and there weren't any disabilities? <.<'

 

But that's the point.

Genetic diseases would NEVER completely disappear. Even if Hitler's plan had worked, it's impossible to tell exactly who has specific disorders lock in their genes and who doesn't.

I get your point but it isn't perfect, nothing is. Which is also why we have genetic disorders.

 

That is impossible, didn't you read what she said? Recessive genes could not be tracked. People would be killed when born with disabilities, and they would keep being born and we would keep killing. Inbreeding would create more people with disabilities, so we would eventually die out. Most people with disabilities do not reproduce regardless. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

Recessive genes can be tracked and that's why Hitler would kill the whole family if you had a family member that had something they'd kill you off aswell.... Also who ever said there would be incest?

 

If you kill off all of the families with problems, you would only have a few left, and after a few generations there would be a lot of incest. There will not be many people to choose from when you kill off every family that has genetic problems. And your incest will create genetic problems, which leaves you with even fewer people to pick from. It goes on.

 

Not many people in the world have genetic problems same goes for families... they don't make up even 10% of the population... therefore there won't really be incest...

 

What do you term a genetic problem, and how recessive would a gene need to be to not kill off the family? Most families I know have relatives with 'disabilities'. Psychological disorders especially.

 

Recessive genes can remain "hidden" several dozen generations.

I' m no expert but I suspect there isn' t a single individual on this planet that doesn' t carry a "bad" gene, recessive or not. Furthermore just because one gene seems to be "bad" doesn' t mean the individual who carries it is bad as a whole, what do you know, he could turn out to be one of the only individuals equipped to survive a future plague thanks to that "bad" gene, or grow to be the smart scientist who finds a cure to that plague. By weeding out "bad" genes you' ll weed out "good" ones too and valuable individuals.

I don' t agree with Hitler' s definition of a "bad" gene or individual anyway (I suspect even he knew his "ideology" was total bullshit, he couldn' t even prove his four grandparents weren' t jews, as required by his own laws). Unless one is omniscient chances are his classification of genes or people value is actually ******ed. You can' t judge people by their genes, genes don' t decide everything. I' m glad I live in a society where all men are born equals in rights, the reason why some people wouldn' t be glad of it is beyond me. Ever watched "Welcome to Gattaca" ?

[video=youtube;6-vHCyWVhNc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-vHCyWVhNc&feature=related[/video]

 

If you take them as having definitions which do not align opposite from each other, I suppose that works. However, excessive generosity can be as debilitating to a person as excessive cruelty. In that light, why are they standard when villainous acts are not? And if we fail to answer that, then is it not true that exceptional villainy requires publicity to be acknowledged? I suppose this is to some extent taking the stance that a concept does not fully exist unless observed, but regardless of the interpretation, the real issue is that heroism and villainy are not held to the same standard.

Heroes are not decent. They are exceptional. Decency is courtesy, manners, perhaps a sprinkle of charity. Decent people are not called heroes.

Imbalance. Either the heroism cripples its... for lack of a better word, "victims," and necessitates the intensifying of the opposite extreme; or it becomes the standard and no longer fits the definition of heroism. Seems pointless to talk about in that case.

Modesty has nothing to do with what other people say about someone.

People are inspired by heroes. Depending with whom they connect the most, they may change their lifestyle for the better based on the actions of another. I agree that heroes shouldn't stand alone, and fans of their work should carry it on. How doesn't that happen as it stands now? It is not simple worship, which only praises and glorifies, but carrying on the spirit of the movement. No, it is not wide-spread, but you can't say it doesn't happen. It's an issue of mindsets.

Besides, under the Greek definition, you don't always want to be like a hero...

 

I do not hold generosity as heroic unless you have unlimited resources. Standing up to villainy is what I had in mind. "Playing the hero."

I dislike the standard that heroes are held to. They are better only because they choose to be. If you did not choose to be like them, then you chose wrongly. I dislike deifying others instead of moving to self-loathing for being less than the things that you like. I would rather that someone feel inadequate than resort to thinking that someone else is more capable of choosing than they are.

Exactly. However, I hold that if heroism is based simply in exceptional action, then that exception should not exist. If you praise an action, you should take it and not praise others who take it. Even hold contempt for people who think they are special for it. Simple as that.

Not entirely pointless, because I still view heroism with contempt. I favor a standard that no longer fits the definition. This argument helps me.

I strongly disagree. How one handles themselves in the eye of the public is directly involved to the amount of publicity and praise that they get. Several women refused to move from bus seats like Rosa Parks did, but they did not get praised because the media thought that their image would go over badly. It is the same principle.

I do not see this happening very often. While people may become better because of it, they do not meet my standards if they still deify. I agree that it is an issue of mindsets, but in my eyes, until you think that you deserve as much attention as your heroes because you are equals, you are falling short and are contemptible by my standards. If you think that someone is better than you simply because they made a right choice, then you are inadequate before they are exceptional. Perfectionism holds this, and I stand behind it.

What definition is this?

 

Ah, then it makes sense. Righting a wrong should be natural, to be sure. Although I'm not sure how it is more generous to offer from a limitless supply than a limited one...

We're potentially talking about several different kinds of "better." What about the sort of "better" that can take strength from others--doing favors for them, giving in excess to them, feeding or coddling or protecting? Is it wrong to choose to allow someone else to work out their own problems?

If someone devises and puts in motion a solution to the ailing economy and job market in the U.S., one which requires little effort on behalf of those afflicted, would that be something to aspire to or to strive towards? Even if someone was to take and redistribute the absurd levels of wealth accrued by the upper class, would this be something expected of everyone? I've no doubt such figures would be lauded as heroic, but I also have no doubt that the sudden boon would mean little in the long run for those gifted with it; they wouldn't recognize the value of it and would squander it quickly.

My point in all this is that there are far too many types of people considered to be heroes for you to dismiss the lot of them as detestable. Some heroes receive no press. Some do no good. And I'm still unclear on what sort you're referring to, which makes it hard for your points to get through.

I'll give you that. But it's not intrinsic in the hero; it's a reaction to the hero. There are others who take heroism as a missive for them to improve themselves as well. Pragmatically speaking, not all of us are born with the divine spark of determination. Sometimes it takes a trigger.

Ah, then this boils down to something we've debated at length on more than one occasion. Without the knowledge of those exceptions as exceptions (as they are now), there would be no particular appreciation for an improvement in standard later down the line. You owe it to the thing of which you are contemptuous that you strive towards excellence in the first place. This by no means calls for abolishment of that contempt, of course.

Not seeing how that example relates to the individual's modesty or lack thereof.

I cannot be like every one of my heroes. I praise and respect those who are exceptional in their way. I do not intend, nor do I feel compelled or obligated, to rise to the same level--in that respect. I fully intend to become exceptional in my own way. Consider this quote by Neil Gaiman:

"Chesterton was important — as important to me in his way as C. S. Lewis had been. You see, while I loved Tolkien and while I wished to have written his book, I had no desire at all to write like him. Tolkien’s words and sentences seemed like natural things, like rock formations or waterfalls, and wanting to write like Tolkien would have been, for me, like wanting to blossom like a cherry tree or climb a tree like a squirrel or rain like a thunderstorm. Chesterton was the complete opposite. I was always aware, reading Chesterton, that there was someone writing this who rejoiced in words, who deployed them on the page as an artist deploys his paints upon his palette. Behind every Chesterton sentence there was someone painting with words, and it seemed to me that at the end of any particularly good sentence or any perfectly-put paradox, you could hear the author, somewhere behind the scenes, giggling with delight."

I would posit that to regard someone as a hero is not always some admission of weakness or inadequacy, but often a mark of respect and recognition for an exceptional achiever in a different field. The spirit that is carried on is not the spirit of the craft, but the drive for excellence. It does happen, often; I don't know that I could name a contemporary author who wasn't inspired by another, later author, for instance. Single example, I know, but it's the one I know best, and it gets the point across.

*copypastes from first post in thread*

The Greek "hero" was liable not to be very "heroic" at all; at times, they were even thieves or murderers. They were nevertheless written about and honored in religious ceremonies. Joseph Campbell links the hero inseparably to the hero's journey, consisting of several steps: Leaving home, facing harsh trials, undergoing some manner of transformation (could be physical or mental), and returning home. Campbell himself had a much brighter view of heroes, but by that definition, any number of disreputable characters can be considered heroic. It certainly flies in the face of the definition we understand today.

Though there is one unifying characteristic, present from ancient times right up to the present: The hero is mortal. Simply a man or woman who has undergone a transformation. It is an attainable status. Anyone can be a hero.

I believe it is closer to what you're getting at. Perhaps it's a more agreeable definition for you?

 

Like I said, generosity is not necessarily a good thing. If you cannot give to everyone, then you have to choose who to give to. It is more generous to give to everyone. You are being less generous if you have fewer resources.

What you call a hero may not match what I call a hero, so there will be different definitions according to who you ask.

My problem is with people who believe someone else simply is better than them in an aspect that involves choice.

It depends on the person you ask. Heroism exists because people make another's actions out to be heroic. The only thing that makes a serial murderer less heroic than a soldier is others' opinions of them. If you personally deify someone, then you personally should seek to be like them. Meet your own standards of heroism or stop considering them heroic.

I view their heroism as detestable, but not all aspects of a hero are tainted by his heroism.

I am holding that no matter what you do, you are only a hero if someone else calls you a hero. That is it.

I look down on the people who call them heroes more than those who get called them.

I agree. You can respect someone for triggering a thought in you. But this is not the same as making them your hero. You should not deify someone because they thought of something before you did, that was a coincidence.

It doesn't call for it, but I call for it. In the same way that I call to be able to breath underwater or touch fire without being harmed. Being without pain is not good enough, because I may still die without pain. I need to be able to survive these things, though the same argument applies.

The women who did not get chosen were not chosen because they would not be modest or well-mannered spokeswomen for the cause at hand.

In any event, the point is that I look down on people who acknowledge that heroes exist and simply deny that they are one instead of claiming that they do not exist. Whether you are a follower or a modest hero, if you believe that heroes exist and that you are not one, then you are belittling yourself and deifying others based on choice and you have earned my contempt.

Here we move into artistic ability and influence rather than what we consider moral choice. I can admire someone for their talent, or physical strength in the super hero sense, but this is not the same as calling their acts heroic. When I use the word hero, I think of any person who makes a choice with the abilities they are given and gets praised for it. If the people who praise them do so because they think that they themselves could not have made the same choice given the same abilities, then they are deifying someone else instead of loathing themselves for lacking spines.

This is a different definition than I am using. My definition works regardless of ability. You are a hero because of what you choose to do with the abilities you are given. Someone who is born with exceptional talent is not heroic because of it, because they literally are better than you, genetically.

But again, this is about art, and not moral action. You do not wish to be another artist because the act of appreciation is necessary for art to exist and continue to exist. It is not a moral choice to make a great piece of art, and I do not blame someone for loving authors but not writing similar books. They are not capable of doing so and would feel bad about it if they did. They appreciate them as an artist but not as a hero.

It is when you are both given the same choice with the same abilities and you still deify someone else for making that choice instead of making it yourself that you have bothered me. You had no excuse for not doing it yourself the first time around.

It works. If you view thievery as heroic, then you should be a thief rather than deify another thief for it.

That does sit better with me. Because anyone can be a hero, including you, the only thing stopping you from being one for yourself is your own depravity. That is all.

 

I understand generosity not as a measure of how much one gives to how many, but of how much one sacrifices that others might have more. That is, the poor man who gives his only coin is nobler than the rich man who gives two of thousands. More about proportion than raw quantity.

Ah, ok. That point needed clearing up. So the "better" you're using is subjective and specific to the person. Pardon me if I was supposed to take that as a given.

Well, all I can really say to this is, Can't there be a transitional period? Is it wrong or detestable to name a hero as a means of expressing one's own desires and aspirations? If I say "He's a hero; I'm not on his level yet, but I'm striving for it," is that permissible? I would say such sentiment is implicit in many instances. Not all, though, and perhaps not even most.

That line of thinking also brings to mind another conundrum: that of behavior versus deed. There are heroic acts and there are heroic mindsets; is one detestable for lauding a deed as heroic when it is presently beyond one's power, when one must first reach it before one can do it for oneself?

Fair enough.

Smart of you to include the second statement. This, I see no problem with. Where I took issue was where it appeared you were blaming the hero for his fans. Never a sound frame of mind in my experience.

Isn't it the same? In spirit it is dissimilar if the person naming a hero does not consider herself on that level, but otherwise I would say they work out to be the same. A person calls someone a hero for doing a heroic (respectable, inspiring) deed or living such a life; if they, too, do this deed or begin living this life, wherein lies the difference?

I see this debate feeding into itself and becoming its own beast, so I'll quietly bow out of it for the time being. For another thread, perhaps.

So the issue with modesty is the public stigma, not the insincerity of the individual?

Agreeable.

Well it is still a choice to utilize one's abilities in a certain way, artistic or no. As for moral choice... perhaps I'm defeated there. I could regard as a hero someone who made the exact opposite choice of one I'd wish to make... As for capability, I can't say.

Well, our definitions are slightly different, but I believe we're generally on the same wavelength here. Someone with identical ability who does not make a choice he regards another with esteem for making is certainly detestable. However, this seems to limit a person's recognition to achievers within their field or their scope of ability. I'm not talking strictly about honoring as a hero someone of greater or lesser ability, but also of a different ability. Otherwise, heroism becomes entirely, painfully, cripplingly subjective.

Well then, all other things being equal, mission accomplished on my end! Of course, not sure if all else is equal at present, but at least we've found a definition that won't make your skin crawl.

 

You can make that argument, but you still have to choose who to give your one coin to. Is it more generous for the man with one coin to give it to a rich man or to another poor man? This is the question that I pose to you. How you would determine the most generous action in that respect?

Quite. It is the deification that rubs me the wrong way, not what people think is worth deifying.

You can respect him, but I wouldn't go so far as to call him a hero. Heroes are placed outside of your peer group by definition of being deified.

I suppose I must admit a fault here, as a champion may rise up for a weaker person and that person would have good reason to be thankful for the action. But I still do not advocate deifying someone for any reason other than skill or prowess. Holding an ideal that will take some work is different from deifying a person. Deification implies an otherness, of someone being unattainably better than you by comparison, so why would you bother trying? Worshiping them is good enough for both them and deity.

I take issue with the mutual acceptance of deity and worshipers, but I view worshipers a little more harshly than the deity in most cases.

You do not deify them as a hero if you believe that you can attain their level and become worthy of the same respect that they got from you. Perhaps I push the heroic relationship to extremes, but I see a clear difference between worshiping somebody and respecting them as a valuable or influential person.

You shouldn't have brought it up if you didn't want to debate it. Not avoiding my argument, are we?

Not entirely. This relates to a case where modesty helped someone gain popularity as a hero. Sincerity is the not the question so much as the notion that heroes exist but that you are not one. This is true of modest heroes and followers alike. I stated this just below the section you quoted.

This applies if everyone has the same abilities, but they do not have them to my knowledge.

It is not a matter of whether or not an ability is greater than another, but whether or not I have an ability that my hero has. If my hero has an ability, and I would choose to do the same thing with that ability, then he made better than me only by his abilities. Deifying him would make more sense in this case given that he is more powerful, but I still look down on people who accept their own weakness in lieu of worshiping someone else's strengths.

The respect I acknowledge shares similarities with respect for a different species of animal. It has different abilities than you do, and you respect it for that, but deifying it would be going too far. Like you said, different abilities rather than greater ones.

Indeed. My only complaint is that when people call someone a hero, they cease to believe that anyone can be a hero, thus destroying the definition by realizing it. They do not share the same definition as me.

 

The matter of recipient is a difficult one to sift through, and I posit that the measure of generosity stops at the action of giving. The person is generous, not their gift, nor the choice to whom to give it. In this way, the moral value of the choice of recipient is a matter entirely separate from generosity as a characteristic. It is the desire to give of oneself to another.

I have noticed something I feel I should have addressed much earlier, something which I believe is leading to a fair bit of disconnect between our points.

You continue to refer to heroes as having been deified. By the strictest definition, this is incorrect. The line between gods and heroes is quite explicit, first and foremost being that gods are not mortal. In fact, the two are nigh mutually exclusive, especially if we're going by the ancient Greek hero (which is rather a favorite of mine). Of course, also under that definition is a much more clinical, more analyzable characteristic, not one which exists solely by virtue of ascription, nor one which is bound by the morally "right."

In fact, that's exactly what I'm doing. A tactical retreat, for I can only argue so many points at a time without my brain becoming frazzled. And maybe, just a little bit, I was hoping for a reaction. <3

I think I see where you're coming from here.

Of course, but there's a fair bit of overlap depending on the ability. There are also crossroads while learning different skills where potential exists for many skills to be cultivated, but not all can feasibly be worked towards at once. A person learning a new language, for instance, could potentially become an expert in native literature, politics, sociology, and so on within that language.

Can't say much to that. But I believe re-examination of the use of the word "deification" may re-open this pathway.

Whoa, hold on. How does that happen? I would think the implication of calling someone a hero is that "Anyone can become a hero, but x has gone ahead and become one." The "can become" is important here, syntactically speaking.

 

The person is not a hero unless others consider him one. Not all acts of generosity get praised, even those that get the public eye. Why is this?

I am not necessarily against heroes, but against heroism as a social concept. I am against deifying other people. When I see someone talk about their hero, they have usually deified the person about whom they are speaking. I am against this mindset and the fact that it exists regardless of the definitions that you and I use for heroes.

I look forward to finishing this particular one.

I have little to say against this, and so I must acknowledge your point.

I fail to see the Greek usage applied by people now living to people that they respect. I will use deification as long as it applies to cases that I have experience with.

It should be the implication, but it is not what those who promote heroes are implying. They believe that they could not become a hero because they were too weak or something similar, regardless of whether or not this is supported by physical evidence. A good example is a politician, and deifying him for his position rather than perfecting your own standing in relation to him or questioning what makes him more worthy of being called a hero than you.

 

I usually use the word "hero" when referring to the main character of a fiction, and "villain" when referring to the main antagonist. If the main character is bad I' ll call him a anti-hero. BTW, the modern sense of the word "villain" in French is either "ugly", "bad", or a mix of both. In French the bad antagonist is called "le méchant" (the bad guy).

To me a hero/villain is a fictional character and/or a good/bad guy archetype. If I was to call a real person a hero or a villain that would probably be me being sarcastic.

Although I believe we' re all equally equipped to deal with moral dilemmas there are some acts that remain truly impressive, for instance someone sacrificing his life to save a total stranger without pausing to think (which goes against the self-preservation instinct embedded in everyone' s DNA, I' m not sure it' s a reaction that anyone could train himself to have). I still wouldn' t call that person a hero, but I would have no problem qualifying his reaction as being heroic (although the person isn' t archetypal this isolated act fits the archetype). Same deal with the word villain, I' d rather speak of villainous acts than actual villains.

Some people use the word "hero" to speak of real persons, implying that they feel some form of admiration or gratitude towards them. I don' t, but I get their point. They don' t necessarily mean they see their hero as superior (which I suppose is what you mean, Makaze, when speaking of deification), they probably think of their hero as a role-model rather than a god-like figure.