Re-post: One of the greatest quotes – and its misinterpretation
Sorry dear All, but Google and the Blogger seem to hate me – I simply
can post no comments at all. So here is my reply to the comment of 18 June
2019, 7:22 PM by Unknown.
“A little late to the game here, but I'll take a shot. The point of virtue ethics is to live a virtuous life through practicing a set of virtues: diligence, temperance, patience, etc. For Christians this means following the examples of Christ. We practice these virtues until they become a part of our nature, allowing us to, hopefully, live good and fulfilling lives before the end. What the author of this article ironically failed to realise is that Bailin is practicing virtue ethics by sparing Guy, exactly what Baldwin was stressing for in this quote. Had Bailin killed Guy and possibly "saved" Jerusalem then it would have completely defeated the entire purpose of Bailin's character since he would have chosen a political convenience over practicing the virtue of compassion.”
“A little late to the game here, but I'll take a shot. The point of virtue ethics is to live a virtuous life through practicing a set of virtues: diligence, temperance, patience, etc. For Christians this means following the examples of Christ. We practice these virtues until they become a part of our nature, allowing us to, hopefully, live good and fulfilling lives before the end. What the author of this article ironically failed to realise is that Bailin is practicing virtue ethics by sparing Guy, exactly what Baldwin was stressing for in this quote. Had Bailin killed Guy and possibly "saved" Jerusalem then it would have completely defeated the entire purpose of Bailin's character since he would have chosen a political convenience over practicing the virtue of compassion.”
First of all, thank you for writing and for bringing a new point of view
into the discussion. However, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you.
Well, yes, killing Guy would have meant that Balian failed to practice compassion and mercy. But the point of the whole article is that real virtue – not just Christian, but I daresay virtue in Judaism, Hinduism and Islam as well – sometimes means taking the wrong path by committing a sin and sacrificing your own ‘soul’ for others’ life. Though Guy of Lusignan and Adolf Hitler are not exactly on the same level, but would you say the same if the person in question were Adolf Hitler? Would you consider practicing the virtue of compassion and sparing Hitler’s life to be more important than saving millions of lives by killing him? Those died in the battle of Hattin because of Guy of Lusignan did not deserve compassion? A wise king probably could have saved those lives by negotiating a truce with Saladin.
And since you brought Christians into the picture – please do not forget that Crusaders fought for what they believed to be given to them by God Himself, i.e. the Holy Land and the Holy City.
Well, yes, killing Guy would have meant that Balian failed to practice compassion and mercy. But the point of the whole article is that real virtue – not just Christian, but I daresay virtue in Judaism, Hinduism and Islam as well – sometimes means taking the wrong path by committing a sin and sacrificing your own ‘soul’ for others’ life. Though Guy of Lusignan and Adolf Hitler are not exactly on the same level, but would you say the same if the person in question were Adolf Hitler? Would you consider practicing the virtue of compassion and sparing Hitler’s life to be more important than saving millions of lives by killing him? Those died in the battle of Hattin because of Guy of Lusignan did not deserve compassion? A wise king probably could have saved those lives by negotiating a truce with Saladin.
And since you brought Christians into the picture – please do not forget that Crusaders fought for what they believed to be given to them by God Himself, i.e. the Holy Land and the Holy City.
One can say, of course, that Balian realised that Jerusalem just wasn’t worth it, and perhaps he knew it well that Saladin wouldn’t massacre the people (as the Crusaders had done when they had taken the city). But then again – killing Guy would have meant saving Jerusalem (not only the city itself but the whole kingdom) plus the woman Balian supposedly loved plus ensuring that King Baldwin (again, someone whom Balian supposedly respected and liked) dies in the knowledge that his kingdom is in good hands.
Alla
I disagree in sacrificing a soul for a life. Eternal damnation by willingly committing sin in exchange for delaying the inevitable death is not virtuous. Death should not be feared because it is constant and how we all complete this life. Sin is sin and never the right course. Life is temporary and should be protected but souls are eternal and not bargaining chips.
ReplyDeleteYes, sin is sin, but the whole point is not avoiding, delaying or fearing death. It is about saving lives. Life is sacred. This is one of the main messages of Christianity as well as Judaism (and I'm not sure about it, but perhaps of Islam as well). On my understanding sacrificing your own soul for the sacred life of others is a virtuous act, even if you do this sacrificing by actually committing a sin. When one says that 'Well, my soul and salvation is more important than the life of others' -- that is a sin, too, of pride and egoism. And remember, it is not 'a soul for a life', it is "my" soul for the "many" lives of others.
ReplyDeleteNabi