Why is it that most of the times someone who suffers an injustice due to their passiveness...?

Question

(neutrality if you want to call it as such) is less noble than someone who suffers an injustice due to their actions?

let's take, for instance, two people who lose their job... one loses their job because the company their works to has financial difficulties, the other loses their job because at one point they stood up against a decision their boss made (it doesn't matter whether the boss' decision proved to be good or bad, what's important is that the result is pretty much the same... they both lost their jobs). Who is more likely to be considered more "heroic"...? How much the circumstances affect our judgment, even when the outcome of events is similar?

Answer 1

I think it would be more appropriate to say which one is the martyr, not which one is a hero. I don't know many people who get fired from their jobs(for ANY reason) who are considered hero's. However, I DO know people who've been fired from their jobs that could be considered a martyr.

In YOUR example, to answer your question - The circumstances COULD affect our judgement according to "Politics"... In other words, if it was Paris Hilton, we might all be a little more interested in what happened. But if it's Tom Smith(or Joe Blow), then it's like WHO CARES!!? See what I mean.

So, my final answer is : Politics sway most people's judgement of others. "It's not WHAT ya know, It's WHO ya know!"  

Answer 2

The person who is more heroic is the person who stood up to their boss however u cant really compare the two scenarios. The 1st person is a victim of circumstance and the second a victim of their own actions. A person who "loses out" due to passivness is less noble because, if the only reason they are suffering is due to their own passiveness than that whole mess could of been avoided ( or maybe not as bad) if they stood up 4 themselves. It is more noble to stand out for yourself, your beliefs, your values and then fail than it would be to sit back and fail due to saying nothing at all.  

Answer 3

Having lost jobs in both of these situations, I don't consider it less noble that I worked for a company that ultimately couldn't afford to pay me. I gave my best at that job for many years. In fact, I did stand up to the boss a couple of times at that job -I just managed to do so in a way which didn't end up in my getting fired. My earlier firing for standing up to the boss was actually less noble, because (even though I was right) I ended up alienating people by the way I did so. I don't know what others think, but I think I was more heroic at the more recent job where I did everything possible to try to keep the company afloat but was unsuccessful.

Answer 4

I can't look at passiveness as the same thing as neutral or nonchalant,many passives are really subservient and I am a champion for them and will gladly help these people, the I don't give a d**n people are on their own with me, the fighter has my admiration.

Answer 5

One was just unfortunate, a victem of unavoidable circumstances (finacial failures). One did what they thought was right regardless of the probably conclusion (firing).

So we are more likely to consider the second heroic and the first unlucky. Because the second actually produced actions or behavoiur we can judge, so we judge them themselves (some might think them impulsive or stupud). The first did nothing (passive) so we have no way of judging or measuring them. We can only pass judgement on their situation - unfortunate.

Circumstances affect our judgement in all decisions regardless out outcomes, at least from after the age of about five. Small children are not very good at using circumstances to moderate judgement, learning to do this was a big part of Piaget's theory of moral development.