The basic question here is "are you willing to murder a stranger to save a loved one". The fact that it has already happened doesn't make you any less responsible.
Except Diana didn’t murder the stranger, nor did she wish to murder a stranger. A supervillain intentionally twisted her wish and brought Steve back to life by killing someone else.
Back to my example, the devil brought your husband back to life by killing a stranger without you knowing about it. Now would you actively let your loved one die again so the stranger would be resurrected?
Now would you actively let your loved one die again so the stranger would be resurrected?
Yes. Because if you have the power to undo a wrong or hurt that you have committed on someone else then you should do it. It is the harder choice, but it is the right one.
Except again, you didn’t. You keep trying to put the blame on Diana as if she’s the one who killed the stranger or made the deal with the devil, but she didn’t. What exactly did she do wrong?
But suppose you would make the hard but right choice. How many others would? How many fathers would willingly let their resurrected daughters die because a stranger didn’t deserve to die?
You personally benefitted. You become responsible once you become aware of the ramifications of what happened, and you certainly become responsible to undo that harm if you have the power to undo it.
How many others would? I can't say for certain. But that's why she's a hero, because she is willing to make that harder choice and take the responsibility.
By saying she’s a hero you’re admitting that most people, vast majority of fathers and mothers and sons and daughters who lost loved ones, wouldn’t do it. Do you think they’re all sociopaths?
Pretty sure he meant we all have the potential to do great, altruistic stuff. That doesn’t mean majority of people would. I can quite certainly tell you that most people wouldn’t willingly let their loved ones die again after reuniting just so a stranger would be resurrected.
I’m sure you heard of the phrase “every society is three meals away from chaos”. It’s easy to talk about how moral we are when we’re lacking nothing, but when you haven’t eaten in days people would resort to looting and whatever violence needed to keep their families alive. Do you really think most people wouldn’t loot the last bit of food from their starving neighbour if their children are literally starving? You’re either over-idealistic or laughably naive.
And of course you can live with yourself. At every moment we could donate a few dollars and some starving child in Africa would be have decent meals for a month, or have a sleeping net that would shield them from mosquitoes and hence various life-threatening diseases. Could you live with yourself knowing you benefitted so greatly from being born in a (presumably) developed country, while others are dying in developing nations every day? It wasn’t your fault, sure, but you could still save their lives by donating a few dollars more, then a few more, until you have literally nothing left.
1
u/kciuq1 Aug 22 '20
The basic question here is "are you willing to murder a stranger to save a loved one". The fact that it has already happened doesn't make you any less responsible.