Moral question (Come on, you know you love them)

[Tonimata]

So, a little, yet rather shocking experience I had today has left me in deep thought. The question, without revealing details too many details of the event, would be:

If you save a life that was, in first instance, forfeited by your action, or lack thereof, are you a "hero" for saving it, or a "villain" for putting it in danger in the first place?

Let me know your thoughts.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Probably a villian because they are trying to lie their way to being a hero

 

[Lust]

You would be a decent person. You did want you could. Your human...........?

 

[jelock]

A villain who suddenly develops a conscience possibly?

 

[MissPixxie]

Myself, I would be a villain and possibly never forgive myself, depending on the situation.

Anyone else would be a hero though I would imagine, because sadly in my brain I can do no right.

 

[Crayzor]

A hero, because, by saving them, you are undoing the action of putting them in danger in the first place.

 

[Koeryn]

You're a prat for putting them in danger in the first place. Saving them becomes a moral obligation at that point, however accidental the endangerment was to begin with.

Karma = +1 - 1 = 0

Karmic Balance Achieved.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

It depends if you put them in danger on purpose.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

I say I'm the hero for saving but a villain for what i'd make the person do for me as a result for saving the life.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Was putting it in danger intentional? If not I'd say hero.
If it was, did you do it to cover your ass? If not then I'd say about neutral (more or less), and if you did then it is bad.
This is all very situational though!

 

[DarthFennec]

They'd cancel each other out if they were both on purpose. If you saved them or put them in danger by accident, that bit doesn't count, or it just counts toward you being a klutz.

 

[Dragonforce525]

I'd say you were a moronic hero, I'm assuming you didn't intentionally put them in danger to hurt them, just for a laugh, then you risk your own life to save them. So you're stupid for putting them in danger, but heroic for saving them after your stupid idea backfired in an unforeseen way.

 

[supermaster1337]

You are completely NEUTRAL

 

[SteinFaust]

I'd say you were a moronic hero, I'm assuming you didn't intentionally put them in danger to hurt them, just for a laugh, then you risk your own life to save them. So you're stupid for putting them in danger, but heroic for saving them after your stupid idea backfired in an unforeseen way.

Paul Blart...?

 

[the Dept of Science]

Yea, depends if its intentional or not. Not enough information given in the question really.

Firstly I think its probably more complex than you being a "hero" or "villain".

If you (maybe its not you in the situation but Im going to say you) endanger someone intentionally, that makes you an asshole, realising your problem and saving the day makes you a normal human being. Saving someones life that you endangered isn't really a morally exemplory act, its what is expected of you.
If it was accidental, that perhaps makes you a little careless, but noone got hurt in the end and everything is ok. Not exactly a hero, but not an asshole either.

 

[Arcticflame]

Way too general a scenario, I need much more solid context to form any semblance of a response.
Yes I realise moral questions are intended to be slightly open-ended, but this is way too vague to begin a response.

 

[Blueruler182]

Depends. If it was an accident and you save them, yeah you'd be a hero, to a certain degree. I mean, you probably want to avoid charges anywho, but you could always let the fucker die. If you put them in danger just so you can save their life, then you're a bad guy. Wouldn't go so far as to say "villain" because you'd have to be twisting a mustache while doing it, but you wouldn't be a good person either.

A hero would spill his/her blood before spilling the blood of the innocent.

Innocence is another topic all together and not entirely true. A selfless hero would do so. But there are ends justify the means heroes. Is one more so than the other? Entirely different moral conversation.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well if you knowingly put it in danger then yes you are a villain. If you did not knowingly put it in danger and then saved said life you are a hero.

 

[Gralian]

'All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing'

The way i apply that quote to this riddle is that saving the person is a greater act than putting them in danger. Evil will happen regardless of whether you take action, but by actually doing something about it as opposed to walking away or watching someone be put in danger makes you the better man and makes you a hero. Instead of being passive, you are active.