pious cause it is loved, or loved cause it is pious?
I remember from my philosophy classes the question from Plato's 'Euthyphro' where Socrates asks "Is the pious loved by the gods because it (the pious) is pious? Or is the pious pious because it (the pious) is loved by the gods?". That one statement has always sort of followed me in the back of my mind and I have always put it towards all the other actions and emotions that people have. Recently, however, it has come to my attention yet again in an action that has been done around me.
Recently I was watching a stage performance of a children's cartoon by real live actors. You have seen these things before where real people dress in the over styled costumes of the characters and do a little mimiced routine to a sound track people played. The one I saw had the one main character fighting the one big evil dude. Of course, the big evil dude was kicking the good guys butt something royally and then, just at the moment when the evil dude stood over him, raised his mighty weapon to deliver the final killing blow, the main characters friend jumps into the fray and diverts the evil dudes attention and more fighting ensues. The evil guy again manages to force the friend to their knees, as well as managing to keep the recovering main character at bay, and forces both to their knees and, again, as he gives his big speech of "not even your pitiful friend can save you now...now, you shall both perish" and again raises his gun, another friend jumps into the battle. The two fallen friends, seeing their third friend in battle, manage to gather their strength and, together, the three battle the evil dude and force him to retreat to safety in a cloud of smoke as a symphony of victorious music marks the victory for our heros. All three stand tall and say "through co-operation and friendship, we have succeeded and defeated the evil person".
Now, flash to another scene. A news report tells of how three males between the ages of 25-30, surrounded a 38 year old man and attacked him and robbed him of his wallet and valuables. The reports are neutral, as all news reports attempt to be in that they try to keep out the words like 'cowardly' and 'inhumane', and only give the facts. However, there are a few words slipped in that give you the impression that this is a horrible act of cowardness. Even though the news reports keep those words out, when friends and those around me hear about the news report I hear them mutter about the thieves 'spinelessness', 'cowardly', and 'horrible' behavior.
Now, I sit back and wonder, what exactly makes the ganging up on someone and co-operation good or bad? I mean, I see the three good people fighting the evil person and hearing that co-operation is good, but when I read about three bad people ganging up on one person it is bad. Is it the end result that makes the transition from good to bad co-operation? if I co-operate for a good reason (beating an evil person) then I am co-operating for good, but if I co-operate for a bad outcome then it is bad? if that is the case, then what exactly is a good or bad thing? I mean, countries gang up on others all the time and we call it war. Is that ganging up good or bad?
Or perhaps it is a case of strength. The three good people had to gang up on the evil person because the evil person could defeat the two and the good needed a third, so therefore it is a case of equal strength. Then that would explain why the three thieves ganging up on the one man was bad cause we assume that the strength of the one man was that of one guy, so having three was an unfair advantage on the thieves part. But, if that is the case, then would it make the thieves action good and understandable if the one man was a body builder and had the strength of 4 men, and the three men managing to take him down was a miracle?
Or is it the final outcome and the purpose of the fight? the good guys were stopping the bad person from hurting someone so the ganging up was fair, but the villians were stealing from a man, therefore ganging up is bad. But, if that is the case, what does constitute a good or bad outcome or action. I mean there is the so-called obvious ones of 'he tried to steal my money' or 'they beat me up for no good reason'. But what about the ones that would be like 'they ganged up on him for no apparent reason' but what the guy being ganged up on doesnt tell you is that he was part of a gang that beat up one of their friends, or perhaps he was a guy that dated one of the gangers sisters and beat her up pretty bad when she wouldnt 'play nice' on the date. At what point does the ganging up be bad or good. I guess you could say that in the case of the bad guy and the good guys at the beginning of this Alice in Wonderland fall, the ganging up is obviously a good thing to co-operate because the bad guy was beating up on one of the good guys and had him down and kept coming. So what would have happened had it been the other way? if the good guy had the villian down and then the good guy kept coming and the villian had another henchman come in and assist in the fight. Would that be cowardly or co-operation?
The last possible thing I can think it to come down to is subjectivity. If you, the viewer, see something as cowardly, then it is cowardly. If it is noble, then it is noble. So, does that mean that we have answered Socrates question by saying that it is not the act of piousness that makes it loved by the gods, but the fact that the gods see it as a way and therefore it is that way?
Recently I was watching a stage performance of a children's cartoon by real live actors. You have seen these things before where real people dress in the over styled costumes of the characters and do a little mimiced routine to a sound track people played. The one I saw had the one main character fighting the one big evil dude. Of course, the big evil dude was kicking the good guys butt something royally and then, just at the moment when the evil dude stood over him, raised his mighty weapon to deliver the final killing blow, the main characters friend jumps into the fray and diverts the evil dudes attention and more fighting ensues. The evil guy again manages to force the friend to their knees, as well as managing to keep the recovering main character at bay, and forces both to their knees and, again, as he gives his big speech of "not even your pitiful friend can save you now...now, you shall both perish" and again raises his gun, another friend jumps into the battle. The two fallen friends, seeing their third friend in battle, manage to gather their strength and, together, the three battle the evil dude and force him to retreat to safety in a cloud of smoke as a symphony of victorious music marks the victory for our heros. All three stand tall and say "through co-operation and friendship, we have succeeded and defeated the evil person".
Now, flash to another scene. A news report tells of how three males between the ages of 25-30, surrounded a 38 year old man and attacked him and robbed him of his wallet and valuables. The reports are neutral, as all news reports attempt to be in that they try to keep out the words like 'cowardly' and 'inhumane', and only give the facts. However, there are a few words slipped in that give you the impression that this is a horrible act of cowardness. Even though the news reports keep those words out, when friends and those around me hear about the news report I hear them mutter about the thieves 'spinelessness', 'cowardly', and 'horrible' behavior.
Now, I sit back and wonder, what exactly makes the ganging up on someone and co-operation good or bad? I mean, I see the three good people fighting the evil person and hearing that co-operation is good, but when I read about three bad people ganging up on one person it is bad. Is it the end result that makes the transition from good to bad co-operation? if I co-operate for a good reason (beating an evil person) then I am co-operating for good, but if I co-operate for a bad outcome then it is bad? if that is the case, then what exactly is a good or bad thing? I mean, countries gang up on others all the time and we call it war. Is that ganging up good or bad?
Or perhaps it is a case of strength. The three good people had to gang up on the evil person because the evil person could defeat the two and the good needed a third, so therefore it is a case of equal strength. Then that would explain why the three thieves ganging up on the one man was bad cause we assume that the strength of the one man was that of one guy, so having three was an unfair advantage on the thieves part. But, if that is the case, then would it make the thieves action good and understandable if the one man was a body builder and had the strength of 4 men, and the three men managing to take him down was a miracle?
Or is it the final outcome and the purpose of the fight? the good guys were stopping the bad person from hurting someone so the ganging up was fair, but the villians were stealing from a man, therefore ganging up is bad. But, if that is the case, what does constitute a good or bad outcome or action. I mean there is the so-called obvious ones of 'he tried to steal my money' or 'they beat me up for no good reason'. But what about the ones that would be like 'they ganged up on him for no apparent reason' but what the guy being ganged up on doesnt tell you is that he was part of a gang that beat up one of their friends, or perhaps he was a guy that dated one of the gangers sisters and beat her up pretty bad when she wouldnt 'play nice' on the date. At what point does the ganging up be bad or good. I guess you could say that in the case of the bad guy and the good guys at the beginning of this Alice in Wonderland fall, the ganging up is obviously a good thing to co-operate because the bad guy was beating up on one of the good guys and had him down and kept coming. So what would have happened had it been the other way? if the good guy had the villian down and then the good guy kept coming and the villian had another henchman come in and assist in the fight. Would that be cowardly or co-operation?
The last possible thing I can think it to come down to is subjectivity. If you, the viewer, see something as cowardly, then it is cowardly. If it is noble, then it is noble. So, does that mean that we have answered Socrates question by saying that it is not the act of piousness that makes it loved by the gods, but the fact that the gods see it as a way and therefore it is that way?
posted by Capt_Canuck at 6:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home