18th March 2004, 10:57 PM
Now, I kinda see Fitsi's point, but at the same time I already mostly agree with Weltall and the rest of the smart people here. Hard to say. While I would never say "thank you" to my seat belt during a crash, I would CERTAINLY say thank you to the inventor of the device. However, at the same time, while they weren't out to save MY life in particular, they did have a mindset of making that device TO save a life. Hard to judge this one really... Is the person who dragged a trampoline underneath a window, purely to have fun jumping, but then went inside, a hero due to pure circumstance? Can one claim by extension that the person who gave the trampoline to that person is a hero, and thus down the chain call everyone involved in the creation of that trampoline a hero?
By the reverse of that, do you call someone a killer because they put a gun away in a cabinet that gets knocked over and then shoots someone? Do you call them a killer because they were swimming underneath an unknown diving spot when someone jumped and hit them and was killed by the impact (go ahead and assume the person who was actually hit survived, just to avoid that whole issue). By the reverse, perhaps we can judge how we should judge this. Now, I'll readily admit that I am COMPLETELY BIASED FOR GOOD here. That's a fine bias to have. :D
So, if one is to assume that someone who is hit by a baby, saving it's life, is a hero, must we also call the person who's body breaks the back of a pool diver purely by a freak accident a killer? Hard to call that really. Certainly, there's no need to be out to do good deeds from the start. If the person saw the baby and made an effort to catch it at any time, will is involved, and in those cases I will ALWAYS call the person a hero. It's when the baby falls and the person doesn't do a single thing due to being unaware, and the baby hits the person, then it's a thinker. Yes, the child wouldn't be alive otherwise, but similar logic can find people guilty of things I would never find them guilty of myself. Hmm... Perhaps the person shouldn't be called a good deed doer, but should still be given a quick thank you perhaps. Perhaps what determines this is what the person does AFTER the incident.... I dunno... You discuss, and the winner's prize will be that I'll change my viewpoint to the winning one.
By the reverse of that, do you call someone a killer because they put a gun away in a cabinet that gets knocked over and then shoots someone? Do you call them a killer because they were swimming underneath an unknown diving spot when someone jumped and hit them and was killed by the impact (go ahead and assume the person who was actually hit survived, just to avoid that whole issue). By the reverse, perhaps we can judge how we should judge this. Now, I'll readily admit that I am COMPLETELY BIASED FOR GOOD here. That's a fine bias to have. :D
So, if one is to assume that someone who is hit by a baby, saving it's life, is a hero, must we also call the person who's body breaks the back of a pool diver purely by a freak accident a killer? Hard to call that really. Certainly, there's no need to be out to do good deeds from the start. If the person saw the baby and made an effort to catch it at any time, will is involved, and in those cases I will ALWAYS call the person a hero. It's when the baby falls and the person doesn't do a single thing due to being unaware, and the baby hits the person, then it's a thinker. Yes, the child wouldn't be alive otherwise, but similar logic can find people guilty of things I would never find them guilty of myself. Hmm... Perhaps the person shouldn't be called a good deed doer, but should still be given a quick thank you perhaps. Perhaps what determines this is what the person does AFTER the incident.... I dunno... You discuss, and the winner's prize will be that I'll change my viewpoint to the winning one.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)