...is he a hero or an evil person?
2007-02-26 12:05:29 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
first, give him a medal, second, put him on trial, if jury convicts, put him in jail. some president will pardon him sooner or later.
2007-02-26 12:53:53 · answer #1 · answered by fredthekat 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
interesting question. an even more interesting question would be what about if he murdered somebody, but was then the only one able to save the world? Would (and should) he be pardoned? Or what about if in order to save the world he had to kill an innocent person?
I think we could say (for your question) that saving the world was heroic while murdering somebody was evil. I think your question shows the problem with labelling people. Is a person who does great good a bad person for doing a lesser evil (and yes, killing somebody is less wrong than allowing the world to be destroyed). Maybe we should just forget about whether a person is "good" or "bad" and focus on the specific acts that they commit. Otherwise we are left in the awkward position of either trying to weigh an impercise good against an imprecise bad or completely ignoring the good that "bad" people do (as it seems MJR would do) or the bad that "good" people do.
2007-02-26 21:28:44 · answer #2 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you look at it from an equity standpoint - anyone who saves the whole world from destruction can pretty much pick and choose who lives and dies - since they are all alive only because of him.
From a humanistic perspective, it depends on the quality of his intent both in saving the world and killing the person. Perhaps he saved the world BY killing someone in cold blood?
2007-02-26 20:32:10 · answer #3 · answered by greeneyedprincess 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is neither. In the first instance he is acting out of self preservation which happens to benefit humanity as well, so altruism does not factor into it. In the second situation, without full knowledge of the circumstances for the murder, we cannot judge him to be evil. The cannibals of the Congo were not evil and they killed in cold blood.
2007-02-26 20:14:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is not enough information to judge.
Maybe he saved the Earth purely by accident, or for purely selfish reasons ("that's where I keep all my stuff!"). Likewise, he may have killed that person for entirely noble and just reasons (it was the only way to stop that person from destroying the Earth).
Perhaps if we knew more, we would hate him for saving the Earth, or laud him for killing some person. Nobody can fairly say.
2007-02-26 20:13:39 · answer #5 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he's probably not a hero for saving the earth because of his motives. He obviously does not value human life because he murdered someone so he probably wanted to save the earth cause he need to to survive himself. That would make him selfish all around.
2007-02-26 22:58:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Watch Star Wars and you will know. Of course, I suppose they would be considered a bad person. Heroes start out good, but tragedy and betrayal bring them down to our level. It always happens. Hate to compare to movies again, but watch RED DAWN. They start out noble, but kill the traitor in cold blood in the end. Its the essence of humanity.
2007-02-26 20:23:28 · answer #7 · answered by Forum Viking 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he has violated the rights of another. To treat him as anything other than a vile murderer is treason to the victim and their family. Even if he was a great hero, he is still an equal in the eyes of the law.
2007-02-26 20:08:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He's a person and nothing more, nothing less, regardless, period. To say anything else is to grant unwarranted and fairly complicated subjective value to an otherwise very simple thing.
2007-02-26 20:51:24 · answer #9 · answered by Smokey 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is an evil person who WAS hero.
2007-02-26 20:08:14 · answer #10 · answered by Q 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋