Of Heroes And Villains

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Here I want to discuss the cultural phenomena known as heroism in relation to individuals called villains. It revolves around a cultural sense of morality as deemed by authority. Of course often enough in history this distinction can be blurred where there isn’t much difference between the so called heroes and the villains they’re supposed to contrast.

An example would be the crew of Enola Gay that dropped the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima hailed as heroes by the United States for ending the second world war.

It would seem that heroism taken to its final conclusion in reduction is nothing more than praise of individuals or groups of people of accomplished actions approved by authority separate from all the fictitious morality centered upon them.

Indeed, what is the difference between heroes and villains anyways?

2

So this is your only example to prove yourself? A hero or villain is not always connected to authority. That crew only followed orders, their mission was crucial in stopping millions more from dying. And everyone with a bit of sense knows that hero or villain is perspective in such cases.
A person stops a bank robber , the person is a hero to some , a villain to others . A doctor saves the life of a baby who later grows up to slaughter thousands. Etc, etc, etc.
I could say that those in the photos were in agreement with their government to slaughter others not of their country. The children died due to their parents agreeing with their government. The parents by their own actions or inactions killed their children.
Villains or heroes? It is all about perspective.

3

Intent behind their actions.

Intent, and reasoning to have that intent are two entirely different things, and both may be opposite to each other in some cases.

It is not one’s actions that decide whether he is hero or villain but what exactly was his reasoning and intent to act that way. Having said that, A hero still can get his reasoning wrong, and his actions can cause damage instead of help, but he is still a hero as far his actual intent is to bring betterment.

The same is true for the villains. Irrespective of the results of their actions, they will remain villain as far as their intent is to cause harm.

Like, the Englishmen ruled India for around four centuries. They enslaved people here and looted the wealth and natural resources here. But, this is also true that India would have never been that one unified India which it is now, had the English never ruled India.

There was no india in the indian subcontinent when british came here for the first time. There were as many as 535 small states present in this region (if i remember that figure correctly), which were also owned by different kings and clans, though Mughal dynasty was the biggest one but it still did not representing the whole india. Britishers started winning states one after one and kept in including in their British empire. And, lastly, they swept the whole subcontinent.

But, their hold of four centuries all over the region, unified it indirectly. And, when India won its freedom, it did not fell apart again in those 535 small states, but remained one, though Britishers tried their best to do that, and ultimately succeed in parting it into two portions too(India and Pakistan).

See, India is India just because it was kept enslaved by the Britain for four centuries. That is the highest contribution which can be given to any country. But, Britishers cannot be called a hero just because all that happened because of them. As that was never their intention, thus, the credit will also not go to them too. They will always be considered as villains, and rightly so.

with love,
sanjay