At what point does it do more harm than good or is there no point at which it is incorrect?
2006-07-29 15:53:21 · 8 answers · asked by rodneycrater 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
It depends what they need defending from. If they need defense from an attacker, we must know why they are being attacked. I do not want to save someone being attacked because he killed someone's brother, for instance. Since there will always be a moral judgment on our parts as to who deserves our defense and why, we can only judge the act to be a virtue after the fact, once we know the results of our actions.
2006-07-29 16:12:07 · answer #1 · answered by Chris 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When it will actually work against the person's interests, e.g., gaining public sympathy: There are many powerful issues that have gained their momentum from a "poster child" that becomes focal & instrumental in creating public awareness, so short of wrongful death or imprisonment, there are sometimes reasons why an individual would be better served by publicity and media advocacy than through the direct intervention of one or two people. This can only be weighed by those in a position to help and those in a position to assess the potential for growth of the helpless or impaired, be it one of future security, surroundings, or other considerations.
This question was well posed. A pleasure to attempt its answer.
We need more like it. Thanks.
2006-07-29 16:10:53 · answer #2 · answered by cherodman4u 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it ever not a virtue? To what degree? The highest degree....I would say. Give me an example please when you would be in doubt about doing so.
Let me think of one: defending the dead?...virtue
defending a person who can not speak?
...virtue
defending a person who is too shy and inse-
cure?.....virtue
defending someone who can not grasp the
importance of standing up for himself?...
virtue
I think the question should be: Does it ever do harm to defend a person who can not defend himself/herself?
My answer is: never!...unless the person told you never to do so.
2006-07-29 16:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by justmemimi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Harm vs. good? Surely these change across people, maybe even across time and space. We are that which is, if we are not at least a part of, that which is. If we do something wrong, that would mean either existence as a whole does not add up to greatness, or that you yourself, as a be-er, is a wrong object, because it can and does wrong things. So, if we exist, how could we do anything wrong? The rules of existence are already set up, arent they? The first rule being "something exists," how could that be bad or wrong? Or any production from that which exists?
2006-07-29 17:01:46 · answer #4 · answered by The Witten 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how it affects the world, say if Adolf Hitler had been completeky demonized and misunderstood to the point of not even being in Germany during WW11, I would say very important, if somebody saw a person shoplift a candy bar and someone else was blamed it would still be important to those invloved but not something you would write 150 books about
2006-07-29 16:01:47 · answer #5 · answered by magpie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The strong should always protect the weak. This is a virtue the virtue of love toward your fellow man.
2006-07-30 06:48:29 · answer #6 · answered by m 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The weak should always be defended by the strong.
Much Love!!
2006-07-29 15:57:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I agree. The strong should protect the weak. I suppose it does more harm when you become to restrictive or take advantage or take away independance.
2006-07-29 16:00:39 · answer #8 · answered by Arsh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋