A True Texas Hero!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

I’ll have to disagree with the statement that the idea of heroism can be divorced from morality.

Whether a man is thought of as a hero or a villain depends entirely on whether his actions are considered moral. Was Robin Hood a hero or a villain? Was V in V for Vendetta a hero or villain? In their respective stories, both acted with exceptional courage in the face of danger.

If heroism is a solely a legal issue, however, then they are both villains.

They are heroes only if you agree with their morality. I’ll go out on a limb here and surmise that Lifticus likely considers them heroes, while Headhunter probably considers them villains.

These are fictional characters, of course, but real examples abound.

William Wallace and Jesse James spring to mind. And who was the villain at Ruby Ridge? Randy Weaver or Lon Horiuchi?

Finally, consider that Osama bin Laden is considered a hero to a great number of people. Many of those same people consider George Bush a villain. Likewise, most people who consider George Bush a hero consider Osama a villain.

The legality of these men’s actions is not an issue here. They are heroes or villains depending only on whether you think what they are doing is moral or immoral.

Morality is, in my opinion, not universal, which is why the same action can be considered villainous by one person and heroic by another.

82

It’s without question that being a hero is ABSOLUTELY tied to staunch moral behaviour.

Oh, Varqanir beat me to it. Damn , he even took my intended Osama Bin Laden argument. Who is a hero for FAR more prople then Bush is for others. (Which shows how morality can be stretched- oops, again Varquanir-damn you!)

The only social approval you can get from being brave and risking your life just because you feel an (amoral) itch is a Darwin Award or it’s honorary mention.

83

190×631 84.1 KB

Now that I have everone’s attention: ;D

To me, a hero is someone who sees the right thing to do and does it, even at the risk of danger to himself. This man stood up for the right of private property. He confronted evil and dealt with it as a MAN. He is a hero.

The right to private property is a core and major right. If you don’t have the right to the food you own, the house you bought, anything you earn, you are a rightless creature waiting to be crushed. This old gentleman stared at pure evil, the face that runs off with the sustenance, the property of others, and crushed it.

His is the true spirit of Texas and he most definitely is a hero.

84

Standing up for what you believe in is heroic. For that reason it is entirely relative. I agree that what is considered heroic is dependent on the the actions you consider moral. I do not condone violence. I especially do not consider violent acts heroic.

People do what they need to do in order to get by. This does not imply their actions are necessarily moral or correct.

85

[quote]rsg wrote:
Though, I still think it may be a tad harsh to shoot someone dead in that circumstance - isn’t that what a prison is for?[/quote]

There’s always a risk being a robber. They got what they deserved.

Don’t steal = don’t get shot by neighbors.

86

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To me, a hero is someone who sees the right thing to do and does it, even at the risk of danger to himself. This man stood up for the right of private property. He confronted evil and dealt with it as a MAN. He is a hero.

This old gentleman stared at pure evil, the face that runs off with the sustenance, the property of others, and crushed it.

His is the true spirit of Texas and he most definitely is a hero. [/quote]

Take note RJ.

87

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Standing up for what you believe in is heroic. For that reason it is entirely relative. I agree that what is considered heroic is dependent on the the actions you consider moral. I do not condone violence. I especially do not consider violent acts heroic.

People do what they need to do in order to get by. This does not imply their actions are necessarily moral or correct.[/quote]

Why is it ‘entirely relative’? The robbers are dead — that’s an absolute. The shooter believed in a firm moral code — that’s an absolute.

Moral relativists argue that the correctness of an action is relative to circumstance. Suppose the crooks were robbing to feed their starving children. Is it then right to kill them? Problem is that the shooter had no way of knowing this. He has to pass judgment on the act itself. He did.

88

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Moral relativists argue that the correctness of an action is relative to circumstance.
[/quote]

Hmmmm, kind of, but not quite. Moral relativism simply states that there is no absolute and universal standard of morality by which to judge all actions, but that one’s moral code is influenced by social, cultural and historical circumstances.

Which is why, as I mentioned before, the precise same action can look simultaneously heroic and villainous depending on who is witnessing it.

The bomber crew might think themselves the most moral of men as they drop their daisy cutters on the evil heathens below. In the eyes of their comrades, they are heroes.

The civilians being bombarded, however, might have a different opinion.

89

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
To me, a hero is someone who sees the right thing to do and does it, even at the risk of danger to himself. This man stood up for the right of private property. He confronted evil and dealt with it as a MAN. He is a hero.

This old gentleman stared at pure evil, the face that runs off with the sustenance, the property of others, and crushed it.

His is the true spirit of Texas and he most definitely is a hero.

Take note RJ.[/quote]

I disagree. He will be judged as to whether or not his actions were moral.

As of right now - he just did what he was asked to do.

To follow your line of thinking EVERYTHING is a moral issue. If I eat the right breakfast or not, shower or not. To say that what he did was a moral or immoral action is idiocy. Morality comes in when others attach it to his actions.

Totally subjective.

What if his neighbor was a child molester, and the bag contained his collection of kiddie porn?

90

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
To me, a hero is someone who sees the right thing to do and does it, even at the risk of danger to himself. This man stood up for the right of private property. He confronted evil and dealt with it as a MAN. He is a hero.

This old gentleman stared at pure evil, the face that runs off with the sustenance, the property of others, and crushed it.

His is the true spirit of Texas and he most definitely is a hero.

Take note RJ.

I disagree. He will be judged as to whether or not his actions were moral.

As of right now - he just did what he was asked to do.

To follow your line of thinking EVERYTHING is a moral issue. If I eat the right breakfast or not, shower or not. To say that what he did was a moral or immoral action is idiocy. Morality comes in when others attach it to his actions.

Totally subjective.

What if his neighbor was a child molester, and the bag contained his collection of kiddie porn? [/quote]

Actually, I DO believe that everything is a moral issue. Every action you take, if done rationally, should be an answer to a ‘yes or no’ question. Should I work honestly for a living, yes or no? Should I buy food for my children instead of beer for myself, yes or no? Should I body slam a washing machine because its driving me crazy, yes or no?

We are creatures of morality. Our moral absolute, when we are rational, is that each person’s modus operandi is their own well-being. Of course, modern Philosophy has a lot to answer for — by obscuring the definition of what a human being is (a rational animal, the animal that thinks using concepts), this makes it difficult to establish any sort of moral code.

We are heavily plagued by a lot of death-worship, which is why morality had to be made relative. This allows moral relativists to ‘get away with’ something evil, since they don’t want to be judged. It’ll probably result in the end of our civilisation.

91

[quote]rainjack wrote:
… [/quote]

You are clearly confused. I got into this argument with you because you claimed Liftus was the one who brought morality to the debate. I pointed out it wasn’t him, but rather the OP who brought it up. That’s that.

P.S: You have the attention span of a hummingbird.

92

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
…

You are clearly confused. I got into this argument with you because you claimed Liftus was the one who brought morality to the debate. I pointed out it wasn’t him, but rather the OP who brought it up. That’s that.

P.S: You have the attention span of a hummingbird.[/quote]

Check the posts. He was the first to use the term. Hero is not a form of the word moral.

You are an idiot.

Is that a moral choice? Being a fucking idiot?

93

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"Texas law allows…

Oh, well, if the law allows it then it must be right and proper because there are no such thing as immoral laws…[/quote]

The mans actions were protected by law. You can debate the morality of any issue all you want, but at the end of the day legal is legal.

94

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Does anyone think the outcome would have been different had the two burglars been white?

Yes.[/quote]

bullshit.

95

[quote]lixy wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
There is nothing preemptive about it. They stole money, they got caught and were shot.

Your own words were “there is no telling what they had planned next”. That’s you trying to justify a preemptive blow.

Shooting people over nickels and dimes while million-dollars thieves do a few years in jail is plain wrong. I don’t care about what Texan books say, it’s just awful to shoot people over money.[/quote]

This is you and your classic editing. More was said before and after the snippet.

96

[quote]rsg wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Your friends are lucky. I highly doubt their story will make it to the news, not even local news. Those sorts of crimes are more common than you’d believe. Molestation could have easily been rape and sounds like it almost was. In my opinion, they should have been killed for copping a feel much less breaking in uninvited. I doubt that was the first crime committed by these people either and I bet they won’t be caught. Who knows who else they have victimized or will victimize, break ins are not a one time event.

They were lucky indeed - there was a story on the radio that 3 men hit over 8 houses over that weekend and killed 3 people, injured the rest.

They even stole the steak out of his freezer - unbelievable.[/quote]

They probably robbed more before hand too. Had they been shot, multiple lives would be better off.

97

In a MASH episode, Hawkeye defines courage as, (slightly butchered)…someone who’s just too cold, tired and scared to give a damn anymore. I think that is the case here. People are tired of seeing these scum get off on technicalities and having more rights than the rest of us who are trying to live according to the law.

Fuck em.

I have the same attitude about gangs here where I live. NOT in MY neighborhood.

Just when I think I can’t stand Texans. :slight_smile:

98

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
No such thing. The guy was operating under the law. The only karmic reaction should be that of the IRS screwing up on his taxes and send him an extra $10K.

The law does not guide my actions – morality does.[/quote]
look below for the message. My posts are being posted hours after I make them.

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"Texas law allows…

Oh, well, if the law allows it then it must be right and proper because there are no such thing as immoral laws…[/quote]

Typically a law captures the morality of the general public. In Texas, we view robbery as immoral and the protection of property as moral even if deadly force is used. All Texans know this. All Texans who decide to rob, rape, damage etc know they may be shot in the act.

Morality is extremely subjective as you must know. A man makes his own rules based on his own morality as you allude to with your own post. A man’s house is his castle. Come in to his house and play by his morally driven rules. In Texas, this moral sentiment is widespread enough to make it to the books.

100

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"Texas law allows…

Oh, well, if the law allows it then it must be right and proper because there are no such thing as immoral laws…

Typically a law captures the morality of the general public. In Texas, we view robbery as immoral and the protection of property as moral even if deadly force is used. All Texans know this. All Texans who decide to rob, rape, damage etc know they may be shot in the act.

Morality is extremely subjective as you must know. A man makes his own rules based on his own morality as you allude to with your own post. A man’s house is his castle. Come in to his house and play by his morally driven rules. In Texas, this moral sentiment is widespread enough to make it to the books. [/quote]

Well stated.