Thanks to watching a movie again, I want to understand the issue of pride which I see the most to cause issues with what happens in the end.

  1. Person 1's Pride says to betray the group and be labeled as a traitor forever, but at the same time, what he did was save the group from knowing the truth.
  2. Person 2's Pride allows him to do the utmost "Great Sacrifice" to give up his life to save the group also.
  3. The group thinks ill of these two people forever onwards for what they have did, they are labeled as being cowards throughout the rest of history.

Person 1 and 2's pride was, without a doubt, allow them to do the thing which the group's pride did not allow them to do. The group thinks of pride as something totally different. Are the two people right over the group with their pride or do we have to follow everyone else with that we think is right for our pride?

  • 1
    Perhaps my definitions are a bit off, but I'm not sure I'd call either of those pride. Both tend more towards either courage or selflessness rather than pride. – NotThatGuy Apr 28 '14 at 13:44
  • I'm also a bit unsure about what you mean by pride. Would "honour" also work? Which film are you referring to? it might help us understand what you are asking. – Lucas Apr 28 '14 at 22:50

It would be helpful to know more about the context (the specific movie) as a number of questions arise.

1 - What truth is so horrid that one would be compelled to betray a group to save them from knowing the said truth?

2 - Why would a group think ill of a person who commits the ultimate sacrifice on their behalf?

3 - What is it about the two persons' actions that is worthy of the label 'Coward'? While Person A's case is harder to defend, your portrayal was not that the betrayal was fueled by fear.

In a more general sense it is entirely possible for a minority to be right over a majority - however even here one encounters context.

Was person A the 'informed minority' who felt morally obliged to betray the wishes of the 'ignorant majority'?

Was person B, in laying down his life, failing to meet other obligations (promises, principles or information for instance) to the group? Was the sacrifice in vain?

That the group would view both as cowards would seem only to be plausible in the context of ignorance of the nobleness of their intentions and/ or obliviousness to their danger.

More information would thin the fog and allow for less speculative replies.

| improve this answer | |

I wouldn't call it pride, 'informed decision' for the greater good would be better. Still, the context is unclear, perhaps some more info?

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy