"Virtue surplus" seems like a concept that only exists if we're measuring "virtue" as some sort of ... uhm ... measurable quality. It also seems to imply that "virtue" = "favors accomplished."
I can see it as the product of a cold, pragmatic way of looking at things: "Yes, Vlad the Impaler is bloodthirsty and prone to killing people without much reason ... but without him, we would be overrun by even more bloodthirsty murderers."
I can see such logic being applied to, say, someone in the Star Wars universe who has chosen to defend the Empire because he actually believes that it is necessary in order to suppress all of the petty, genocidal wars that would pop up between various planets if the Empire weren't there to keep them both in line ... and to keep various threats from outside the galaxy from encroaching.
From a strategic standpoint, I can understand the person who would make such decisions, and opposing the hotheaded hero who wants to punish evil here at hand (heedless of the lurking evil at the gates that THIS evil is keeping at bay).
However, when a so-called hero saves the world (and himself with it) and then proceeds to feel justified in, oh, let's say, raping a girl who really OUGHT to have been honored to spend the night with him ... I can see various folks simmering and feeling obliged not to do anything harsh to him, because they OWE HIM. But you know it's wrong. What, did he get 1,000,000 Good Points, and this one Rape brought him down, let us say, buy 100 Evil Points?
I don't see it that way. Good, Evil - it's not a linear scale. His actions here tell us that he is capable of taking such actions again. And if he "justifies" his own actions because he saved the world previously, we might do well to see just how much surplus he thinks he still has - because he could very well decide to "cash in" and commit more misdeeds later on. The good citizen might feel obliged to thank him for saving the world ... but then he might be wise to move out of town, far away from Mister Powerful Hero, lest one of his kids catch Mr. Hero's corrupt eye.
Besides, power does not equal virtue. There are plenty of people who, given the power, might choose to save or destroy the world ... but it'd be a rare thing for any one person to really have that much power. Our imaginary hero, let us suppose, was in the right place, at the right time, with the right skill set and/or super powers. He succeeded in keeping the world from being destroyed by some particular catastrophe. That doesn't mean that Grandma Jones over there, had she similar power and abilities, would have done any less. And if saving the world had required self-sacrifice, Grandma Jones might have done so for the sake of not only her children but for complete strangers, while Mister Powerful Hero might have wasted time looking for another way out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-26 12:03 am (UTC)I can see it as the product of a cold, pragmatic way of looking at things: "Yes, Vlad the Impaler is bloodthirsty and prone to killing people without much reason ... but without him, we would be overrun by even more bloodthirsty murderers."
I can see such logic being applied to, say, someone in the Star Wars universe who has chosen to defend the Empire because he actually believes that it is necessary in order to suppress all of the petty, genocidal wars that would pop up between various planets if the Empire weren't there to keep them both in line ... and to keep various threats from outside the galaxy from encroaching.
From a strategic standpoint, I can understand the person who would make such decisions, and opposing the hotheaded hero who wants to punish evil here at hand (heedless of the lurking evil at the gates that THIS evil is keeping at bay).
However, when a so-called hero saves the world (and himself with it) and then proceeds to feel justified in, oh, let's say, raping a girl who really OUGHT to have been honored to spend the night with him ... I can see various folks simmering and feeling obliged not to do anything harsh to him, because they OWE HIM. But you know it's wrong. What, did he get 1,000,000 Good Points, and this one Rape brought him down, let us say, buy 100 Evil Points?
I don't see it that way. Good, Evil - it's not a linear scale. His actions here tell us that he is capable of taking such actions again. And if he "justifies" his own actions because he saved the world previously, we might do well to see just how much surplus he thinks he still has - because he could very well decide to "cash in" and commit more misdeeds later on. The good citizen might feel obliged to thank him for saving the world ... but then he might be wise to move out of town, far away from Mister Powerful Hero, lest one of his kids catch Mr. Hero's corrupt eye.
Besides, power does not equal virtue. There are plenty of people who, given the power, might choose to save or destroy the world ... but it'd be a rare thing for any one person to really have that much power. Our imaginary hero, let us suppose, was in the right place, at the right time, with the right skill set and/or super powers. He succeeded in keeping the world from being destroyed by some particular catastrophe. That doesn't mean that Grandma Jones over there, had she similar power and abilities, would have done any less. And if saving the world had required self-sacrifice, Grandma Jones might have done so for the sake of not only her children but for complete strangers, while Mister Powerful Hero might have wasted time looking for another way out.