“A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is braver five minutes longer.”-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Today's discussion was deep. I must say some of the things we brought up in class truly revealed the weakness within human morality. I am easily convinced by arguments that urge me to take the moral high ground, but aren't we all trying to hike out of an endless chasm? There are no answers to our questions, just more questions. Would you save the baby or the group of 10 adults? Was the slaughter of innocent Jews worth a priceless medical advancement? What makes his or her life worth more than mine? Do I really care about the faceless masses?

There were plenty of hypothetical questions put forth today, none of which had easy answers (or answers at all really). Talking about it made me feel cynical and pessimistic, because somehow I was always able to justify the 'wrong side' of the argument. But I feel that there was a part of the scenario that was missing.

Heroism.

There is something brilliant about that word, perhaps it is because I associate with great mythological stories or classic literature. Tales of valor and bravery have existed since the dawn of time on cave walls when the saber tooth tiger was the enemy. Many people in class today noted that they would not be able to make the decision about whose life is 'worth more'. Every time someone said that I thought of all the great heroes, real or fictional, that prevented people from making that decision.

Most people would agree that when faced with death human beings rely on instincts, rather than emotion or logic. When trapped without food for long periods of time people have often reverted to cannibalism in order to save themselves. However in some cases there are those that rise above and make the sacrifice for the greater good. Instead of forcing two people to die in order to save a million, we would rather ask for volunteers, because it would put our minds at ease.

I believe that a reason why we have such a problem with the book made by Eduard Pernkopf is that these people were not willing subjects. Free will was brought up a few times in our discussion, and I think that's because as human beings free will is literally what makes us, us. The inability to exercise our free will becomes a challenging concept to grasp. If Perknkopf had done his dissections on people that agreed to have it done, we would still think it's gross but would we think that it violates any moral grounds? Does that make it right?

It is okay for a hero to gallantly lay down his life to save others, but if we force someone to lay down their life it causes extreme guilt and bitterness. Humans are extremely indecisive creatures. This may be taking the discussion way off the radar but what about cultures that believe in human sacrifice? Religion tends to make any discussion really messy but, are the other cultures wrong for sacrificing one human life for the 'greater good'?