Heroes and Motives (2005)
I think it’s about time we got over finding fault with everyone for whatever they do. If you do something good, like take pity on someone and forgive a bankruptcy, you’re guilty of coddling them. If you do the right thing, like reveal wrongdoings that might otherwise have remained secrets and that needed to be revealed to know the nature of one’s leaders as Mark Feld did, then you’re guilty of being self-serving, or if you didn’t like the person, then you’re guilty of acting out of revenge. Do a good thing that doesn’t seem “right,” and you’re wrong. Do the right thing for a less than good reason, and you’re bad. But if you look at real heroes of history, movies and myth, no one really cares why they do what they do–in fact, a lot of times they do the right thing in order to make up for doing something bad, or for selfish reasons.
Hercules was driven mad, and killed his children. To pay for his crime, he went off and killed twelve monsters and saved civilization. Should we say it doesn’t count because he was doing it as a punishment for being a bad person?
Frodo takes the Ring to Mordor because everyone says he should. He certainly doesn’t want to, and even lets the evil Gollum live when Sam wants to kill him. Should we say he is less heroic because he wasn’t 100% into what he was doing?
Achilles killed many many Trojans (although contrary to the movie, he didn’t win the war that day) because he wanted vengeance on Hector, not because he wanted to save the Greeks.
Spiderman would really rather not be Spiderman. So is he less heroic because he finds it difficult, painful and distasteful to save the world?
In the “old” days, it didn’t matter why you did, only what you did. A new biography of George Washington says “few men could have been more keenly sensitive to their standing in other men’s eyes or more acutely aware of how words and deeds could diminish or enhance their reputation.” Should we conclude that he was less heroic because he saved his country in order to impress people with his ability to save his country?
Then again, attacking people’s motives instead of their results isn’t so new: Thucydides once said that, “the moment that a person is suspected of giving advice, however good, from corrup motives, we feel such a grudge against him for the gail which after all we are not certain he will receive, that we deprive the city of it s certain benefit. Plain good advice has thus come to be no less suspected than bad…”
So let’s get over analyzing everything every time. Does it matter whether someone has resisted an instinctive racist thought and instead spoken and acted in the best interest of race relations? Are we hypocrites if we are nice to someone even if we are telling them we don’t like what they did? If we believe a first thought is the “real” person no matter what they actually do, leave alone that we know what it is, then we are all in trouble. The most peculiar things pop into my mind sometimes, but I certainly don’t think I should be judged by them about whether I am good or bad, leave alone whether what I do is right or wrong.
So get over it, “gotcha”-psychologists. It doesn’t matter what his motives are, and it doesn’t matter whether breaking the rules was bad: Mark Felt took a big risk, and he did the right thing. That makes anyone a hero in my book.
Sally MacEwen
Hercules was driven mad, and killed his children. To pay for his crime, he went off and killed twelve monsters and saved civilization. Should we say it doesn’t count because he was doing it as a punishment for being a bad person?
Frodo takes the Ring to Mordor because everyone says he should. He certainly doesn’t want to, and even lets the evil Gollum live when Sam wants to kill him. Should we say he is less heroic because he wasn’t 100% into what he was doing?
Achilles killed many many Trojans (although contrary to the movie, he didn’t win the war that day) because he wanted vengeance on Hector, not because he wanted to save the Greeks.
Spiderman would really rather not be Spiderman. So is he less heroic because he finds it difficult, painful and distasteful to save the world?
In the “old” days, it didn’t matter why you did, only what you did. A new biography of George Washington says “few men could have been more keenly sensitive to their standing in other men’s eyes or more acutely aware of how words and deeds could diminish or enhance their reputation.” Should we conclude that he was less heroic because he saved his country in order to impress people with his ability to save his country?
Then again, attacking people’s motives instead of their results isn’t so new: Thucydides once said that, “the moment that a person is suspected of giving advice, however good, from corrup motives, we feel such a grudge against him for the gail which after all we are not certain he will receive, that we deprive the city of it s certain benefit. Plain good advice has thus come to be no less suspected than bad…”
So let’s get over analyzing everything every time. Does it matter whether someone has resisted an instinctive racist thought and instead spoken and acted in the best interest of race relations? Are we hypocrites if we are nice to someone even if we are telling them we don’t like what they did? If we believe a first thought is the “real” person no matter what they actually do, leave alone that we know what it is, then we are all in trouble. The most peculiar things pop into my mind sometimes, but I certainly don’t think I should be judged by them about whether I am good or bad, leave alone whether what I do is right or wrong.
So get over it, “gotcha”-psychologists. It doesn’t matter what his motives are, and it doesn’t matter whether breaking the rules was bad: Mark Felt took a big risk, and he did the right thing. That makes anyone a hero in my book.
Sally MacEwen