- A points out a boy who has fallen into the lake and is swirling in the currents helplessly
- A reminds his friends that the waters are said to be very fast and deep; A doesn't dare to risk helping the boy
- B has already jumped into the water and has begun swimming towards the boy, to no avail because of the strong currents
- B gets in trouble because his clothes become heavy from being waterlogged and begins to sink; B waves to his friends for help and friends A & C debate what to do
- C, nodding philosophically, says to A, "Yes, little man, you are right. It looks as though our companion is finding out for himself why no one swims in that stretch of water!"
- having said that, C walks determinedly towards an old rotten tree, breaks of the largest branch, and throws it to friend B
- using the branch, B is now able to swim over to the boy and rescue him
- boy and B congratulate C for quick action and presence of mind
- C acknowledges flattery and in turn, "magnanimously" congratulates B for good intentions, but also chastises him for allowing irrational side to overrule good sense (jumping in without thinking)
- B says that C is right, that "good intentions are not enough"
Consider these thoughts:
- if A didn't inform his friends of the water conditions, and both B and C had jumped in, they probably would have all 3 died...does inaction (due to reasonable fear and hesitation) make one a coward?
- "good intentions are not enough"--can heroism exist only where one is aware of one's capacity (i.e. does failure negate the virtue of the deed?)
- if C had not saved B and the boy in time, what then? C did not take action right away and had been motivated by the same fear A had. circumstances proved fortunate for everyone. can C be a hero then?
No comments:
Post a Comment