Vern's Volvo and Grace's Garage

Vern has been bringing his old Volvo for servicing at Grace's Garage for many years. Unknown to Vern, Grace kept every single part that she replaced. Every time Vern dented a wing or a door, the panel was replaced by a new one. What Vern didn't know was that a couple of decades later Grace had Vern's entire original car in the form of a heap of (still usable) parts hidden in the back of her garage.

So which is Vern's Volvo, the one he's been driving for 20 years, or the heap of parts? Why?

What if, instead of having only the parts, Grace actually used those parts to create (or recreate) the Volvo? Would that be, somehow, a different issue?  

Even though all of the original parts of Vern’s car are no longer part of the Volvo, the car that Vern has been driving for twenty years is his, rather than the original parts in Grace’s garage. The progression from the car being made up of its old parts to containing new parts is very gradual—so gradual that the division between the old and new is not so distinct. For instance, Vern may have ruined a hubcap and replaced it only five months after he bought the Volvo. Although the hubcap is not part of the original car, it is far from being new relative to the last repair. The last original piece was removed the twentieth year; however, the first “new” piece could have been put in place nineteen years and seven months ago. The continual replacement of car parts establishes the idea that the car’s parts cannot be distinguished between being “old” or “new” because Vern has been driving the car with repairs possibly since he purchased the car twenty years before. The parts of the car that existed before any replacements should be referred to as the original parts, not the old parts, since an old part does not have to be an original. Vern would consider the replaced hubcap as an old part even though it was not part of the original Volvo. Thus, the new parts are just an element of the development of the car’s life. As soon as they were added, they became a part of Vern’s car and the pieces that were taken away ceased being part of the car because they no longer belonged to the car’s working system.

            As previously stated, Vern’s Volvo is the car he has been driving  for the past twenty years while the heap of car parts in Grace’s garage is essentially just a heap of used parts. Even if Grace assembles all of the car’s original parts together, the car is not Vern’s. As Vern brought his car into the shop to have its parts replaced, the concept of his car changed as to become accustomed to the new parts. The added parts became part of the car while the pieces Grace took away no longer belonged to the car or Vern. Thus, the evolving car is Vern’s while the heap of parts, or the reassembled original car, is not. Vern had developed a schema in which his car is classified as the car he uses daily and the car that goes into the auto shop to get fixed—the parts of his original car that are removed do not fit into this schema but the replacement pieces are associated as becoming part of the car. If Grace were to show Vern his reassembled, original Volvo, park it next to the car he currently uses, and ask Vern which car is his, Vern would surely reply that the car he has been driving for many years is his. Each time he went in for a repair, Vern dismissed the original parts of the car as continuing to be part of the car and they no longer pertain to the idea or schema Vern has of his car. Vern may consider the original car as his old car, but it is no longer his car.

            Along with Vern’s perception of what his car is, regulations of ownership also support that the car in the garage created from the heap of original parts is not Vern’s car. As Vern mentally discarded the used car parts, he literally relinquished his rights of ownership. He gave Grace money in exchange for new parts and her labor and skill that allowed the parts to become part of his functioning car. In addition, he gave her his old car parts while most likely assuming that they would be thrown into a dump yard or recycled to be used as material for an entirely new object. No matter what happens to the broken, original car parts, Vern does not own them anymore. If a certain part had been recycled and reused to become metal in the manufacturing of a stop sign, Vern cannot claim that the stop sign is his. He could say that the stop sign was made from a car part that used to be his, just as he could look at the Grace’s reassembled car and say that the parts that make up the car were once his.

            It does not matter whether Grace threw away the parts of Vern’s original Volvo, whether she kept them in a heap in the back of her garage, or whether she actually assembled the parts into a working vehicle—Vern no longer owns the parts or the car. They were once his, but ceased to be his once they were replaced and handed over to Grace. Even though Vern no longer has any of the original parts, the parts that replaced the originals became components of his car throughout a gradual process.

The Social Contract

            Society is created when a group of people form a social contract in which they give up certain rights to a government or authority in exchange for protection and social regulations. Montesquieu, an Enlightenment Philosopher, believed that what sets men apart from other animals is a natural tendency to create society: “Mankind have therefore a new motive of uniting; and a fourth law of nature results from the desire of living in society.”

We all give up individual rights to protect and enhance the common good. We renounce the right to kill, to steal, to cheat, or to do anything that would be considered “unlawful” for the sake of society. The reason why we do not let ourselves pursue personal interests, rather than the common interest, is because with society comes protection. If there were no laws, then what would keep people in order? According to Thomas Hobbes, in a natural state, men are always fighting with each other to achieve their own personal gain, but men enter into a social contract for security: 

“For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war…To lay down a man’s right to anything is to divest himself of the liberty of hindering another of the benefit of his own right to the same. For he that renounceth or passeth away his right giveth not to any other man a right which he had not before, because there is nothing to which every man had not right by nature, but only standeth out of his way that he may enjoy his own original right without hindrance from him, not without hindrance of another.”

            Thus, individuals relinquish certain rights to society because they seek protection and order. But in this exchange, society and the government which enforces the rules of society must effectively protect the people. Otherwise, the government becomes corrupt and abuses the rights of the citizens.

            Society is beholden to its people because people came before society. In a democracy, the government is chosen by the people to protect their natural rights, which, according to John Locke, are “life,” “liberty,” and “property.” The duty of the government is to protect the common will of the people and the rights and liberties of the people. Otherwise, society and government should have limited power. If the government abuses its power and does not effectively protect the people, the members of society have the right to overthrow the government. The duty society has to its people is evident in the United States. The federal government is divided into three legislative branches so that not one branch gains too much power; this is a precaution taken to protect the rights of the people within the country. As citizens, we have the right to vote, we can hold a referendum, and we directly elect representatives, senators, and state officials. The list goes on. The main principle of society is to protect the common will of the people and thus society must preserve the equality and rights of the people and never have absolute power.

            When society does not reflect the general will and does not protect the rights of the people, the people are not obligated to follow the rules established by society. At times, long standing laws are overturned because they breach the liberties of the people. In other instances, newly proposed regulations are turned down because of possible infringement of rights. In these two circumstances, the general will of the people overrules societal regulations, but typically only when a republic is established as a government. Once again, the social contract that exists between the United States citizens and their government serves as a good example. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was finally established after many years of discrimination and abuse of minorities in America. The rights of minorities in the United States were blatantly abused, thus the people had the right to disregard societal rules, fight for justice, and change governmental regulations. Proposed laws and actions of the federal government are closely examined by the judicial branch to determine if they are constitutional. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are considered the Bill of Rights because they prescribe the natural rights of U.S. citizens. A law would not be passed unless it is in accordance with the Constitution and does not breach the rights given to the individual.

The situation becomes more complicated in societies in which a republic is not established, but rather where more authoritarian governments are in place. In despotic governments, almost all of the people’s rights are taken away and it is difficult for them to refuse to abide by unjust laws, nonetheless over throw them. In North Korea, the people are suffering at the hands of a tyranny, but cannot revolt against the government for fear of death—the government clearly has too much power. It is right for the people to not follow the rules transposed by society, but it is hard to do so because they are ruled by terror. Societal regulations represent the bloated power of the dictator rather than the common will of the people. Then, it becomes the question of other societies throughout the world whether they should step in to help the suffering people.

NOSCE TE IPSVM

Knowing oneself is to be aware of why one thinks, acts, and believes in a certain way. This knowledge incorporates the reasons behind the actions of a being and the core mental processes that make up our decisions. To have this self-knowledge would be very valuable. Someone may act a certain way but not know his or her real intentions and be unable to determine why he or she behaved that way. However, with such knowledge, there are explanations to the actions, which in turn can lead to improvement or alteration in character. Self-knowledge is valuable because it allows oneself to be aware of the meaning behind behavior and beliefs and whether or not this meaning goes along with one’s own values and morals. Self-knowledge makes a stronger, more confident person who allows him or herself to improve. Knowledge of how we ourselves work can also help us understand the reasons behind others’ actions. This understanding can lead to better communication between people and, eventually, the knowledge of how and why humans as a whole think and act.

I have many weakness—some of which I am not even aware of—but my worst quality is that if something I need to do does not have a deadline, I typically will not do it, or it will take me too long to get it done. This can either have to do with laziness or aversion to the task at hand. I speak for myself, and probably a lot of other classmates, when I say that if assignments at school did not have due dates, they would hardly ever get done. I enjoy doing things that I think are fun and interesting rather than ones I consider unfavorable. However, a lot of the time, the unfavorable deeds benefit me the most because they make me work, challenge myself, and cultivate a sense of responsibility and productivity. I try to stop this weakness in various ways. Sometimes, I will just complete the task so that I will not have to worry about it later. However, I usually only do this when the task is simple and does not require much work. For example, when I was younger, my mom would have to constantly remind me to write thank you cards after one of my parties. Sometimes, I would send the cards out later than would be expected and other times, I pushed off writing the cards until I decided it would be useless and unacceptable to send them so late—thus I would not do them at all. Now, for something as simple as writing thank you cards, I get it done rather quickly. For other tasks that are harder, require more work, or which I find disagreeable, more effort is needed for completion. In cases like these, I have to make a due date for myself, which still does not always work. Oftentimes, I only do something once my parents have nagged me about it so much that I realize I cannot put it off anymore.

My strength is that I remember almost anything. Not anything as in random facts and trivia or material on a test, but I remember many circumstances that have taken place between me and another person. To some people, this strength is rather a weakness since it means remembering all of the bad things someone has said or done. However, I have a strong sense of forgiveness coupled with this memory. Even though I remember hurtful or embarrassing memories, I accept them as part of the past and move on. I think it takes less energy and is healthier to focus on the good aspects of a person—whether they are from the past or present—instead of the negative. This does not just pertain to how I view other people, but to myself as well. I forgive myself for behaving badly and vow to not do it again in the future, rather than lingering on what I have done and disliking myself. Of course, if a bad memory is so strong and representative of a person’s overall character, I am also able to recognize that I should distance myself from that person, or, if the memory is of my own behavior, change my own character.

Sometimes, we cannot recognize our strengths even if others can; what may be a strength really seems like an ordinary part of who we are. Similarly, some of us recognize our weaknesses and others do not. Either way, it is hard to face negative aspects of our personality. But, without knowing our weaknesses, how can anyone improve? I think part of confidence is the ability to acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses in ourselves. A person with true confidence knows he or she has a weakness, but tries harder to change it instead of viewing it as a negative aspect. It is very hard for me to determine what my strengths and weaknesses are. I am unsure of whether what I consider a strength is perhaps not a strength to other people. Then, I do not want to seem arrogant, thinking that I am so strong when maybe I am just ordinary. For my weaknesses, I can find small things that seem weak to me, but maybe I am not even aware of my own biggest weakness. Perhaps one of my weaknesses is worrying about how others view my strengths and weaknesses when I should only care about my own opinion and improve what I think should be changed. The uncertainty of thinking about what I am and am not good at is uncomfortable. In the college essays that I am working on, it is so hard to write about myself and describe “why I would make this or that college more diverse.” It is easy to be me, but it is hard to think about who I am and why I am this way.

Bad Things Happen to Good People

In psychological terms, reward and punishment are two forms of behavioral conditioning. Reward is a positive reinforcement that increases a certain behavior while punishment decreases a behavior. The Book of Job sparks so much confusion because one would think that good behavior would result in reward, not punishment. However, God punishes Job even though he is a moral, pious, and “good” man. Readers of the Book of Job speculate the reasoning behind the punishment of Job because it goes against the universal idea that good should be rewarded while evil should be punished.

The distinguishing of good and evil actions and their consequences is vital to society, in which its members should act in accordance with the general will. In each society, what is good and what is evil is subjective and based off of that society’s own ethical guidelines. But either way, for a society to succeed and have its members cooperate, actions that benefit the general will should be positively reinforced while destructive actions should be discouraged. Otherwise, the behavior of the people is not conditioned and their actions may be equally good and evil. However, there is the problem of conflicting subjectivities of a member of the society and that of the society itself. What a person may deem “good” may be “evil” to the society. For example, in the novel 1984, any person who was independent, free-thinking, and aware of the corruption of the Party would be considered evil and would be punished. Even though the person’s ethical values may seem right and good, to the society they are dangerous and evil.

The problem with being “good” and living in an “evil” society is that the good person is less likely to express his opinions and act in a way that supports his ideals. Unfortunately, the few individuals who are good cannot punish the bad society, since society is led by the government or officials. This is evident in countries throughout the world such as North Korea, Cuba, and Congo where the government exhibits evil behavior but the good citizens are powerless. In this case, the corrupt government of such countries should be punished but other countries with more ethical values in an attempt to stop their inhumane actions. On the other hand, when a society is good and a person’s behavior is evil, he will quickly be punished and be less likely to express that behavior in the future. The latter situation helps society function and upholds ethical values, while the former situation strengthens the power of the government while morals seem to vanish. However, if every evil behavior is punished and every good behavior rewarded, then the problem of despotic governments would ideally cease to exist.

Even though good should be rewarded and evil should be punished, good people do not “deserve” to have good things happen to them. Many times, bad things happen to good people but there is absolutely no relation between the good behavior of a person and the bad thing that happens to them. The most moral, ethical, and giving person in the world could become fatally ill or I could receive a terrible grade on a test even though I studied for hours. Bad things happen, but not necessarily in response to good actions. Going back to the example of a despotic government, there are cases in which ethical acts are punished. A person who acts ethically within such a society will be punished and many times killed. However, by acting ethically and by accepting the punishment, that person is sending a message to other people. Many others will become even more afraid to act ethically knowing the consequences, but a few will admire that person’s courage and uphold his ethical values. An effective method to change an unethical society is to protest by acting ethically and accept the punishment. A combination of resilience and sense of ethics led to the successful Civil Rights Movement when minorities in America had been suffering from persecution and injustice. Supporting personal ethical values in the face of punishment can eventually cause society’s ideals to become more ethical as well.

God punished Job, but not for the sake of punishment. Jobs’ punishment is not a direct effect of his behavior, but of what Satan says to God. When God was holding council, "the satan" brought up a valid question—is Job only loyal to God because he is fortunate and wealthy? God does not know the answer to Satan’s provocative question; he may be omnipotent and omniscient, but he has no knowledge of what has not happened or what does not exist. Thus, the only way to determine if Job is really a follower of God is to test his faith when he is struck with hardship, loss, and sickness. Throughout Job’s life, he is rewarded for good behavior, considering his wealth and happiness. In the context of the story, it is “good” to devote oneself to God and to be an upright man in that society. God punishes Job to determine if his faith was based on just reward or on true devotion.

What Makes Life Worthwhile

Whether or not a life has value depends on who values that life. If a person values his own life, then it is valuable and if a person does not value his own life, but others around him do, then his life still has value. Something that can be lost will always have worth, even including life, considering that it is something that can be taken away and be inexistent at some point. Usually, a person recognizes the value of his or her life when his own life or the life of someone close to him is in danger of being lost. In society, people, as well as myself, take many things for granted. If we are in possession of something such as a house, food, a bed, a shower, family, and friendship and we are accustomed to it being around, we take it for granted and do not realize that these objects and ideas may not exist at some point. The same idea applies to life. We get used to living life and we take for granted the time that we have to live it. Sometimes we even complain about life and how it is hard to live. We may not realize the value of our house until it is about to be taken away from us and we may not value a friendship until it is dying or gone forever. We may not realize the value of life until it is in danger or gone.

Yesterday, my brother was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Just thinking about it now, it is so hard for me to understand why his life is threatened at such a young age. It is even difficult for me to fully realize that he has cancer since I saw him a little over a week ago and he seemed so healthy and happy and loving life at college. His life definitely has value. I can tell that it does just because of the way my family and I feel knowing that his life is in danger. Luckily, thyroid cancer is the most curable cancer and I am confident that he will be fine in the end. But it is still scary knowing that life can be completely affected at any time, or at any age. 18 is too young of an age to die at. At this age, most people have not experienced life, accomplished goals they have set for themselves, or simply appreciated life as it is. Mostly, we have been in school our entire lives, and who wants to do that? School is just preparation for life after we graduate, which is when I believe we do the most worthwhile living.

There are certain things that I want to accomplish that will make my life worthwhile. Right now, I am very interested in biomolecular engineering. By the time I die, I would like to make an advance in current technologies in a way that would benefit people with medical problems. I would like to eventually cure something that is presently incurable, whether it is a type of cancer, disease, or genetic disorder. This would make my life worthwhile because I would be helping others live their lives either longer or at a better quality without physical or healthy-related problems. I think that improving the lives of others should be part of everyone’s life. Advances in medicine and technology have always been a part of humanity. Humans have always tried to prolong life and increase the physical wellbeing of other humans, whether it is because of curiosity or true belief in the value of life. Life becomes valuable and worthwhile when one has improved the quality of life of another person.

                By the time I die, I would also like to have children. I personally love taking care of children and I think I would be a great mother, so having kids would definitely make my life worthwhile. I think that giving life to someone else enriches the value of one’s own life. Generativity is very important to humanity, considering that without creating new life, humanity would cease to exist. I would also like to live in another country for at least a year. I want to fully immerse myself in another culture, not just as a tourist on a vacation, but as an actually member of that society and culture. By experiencing more than one culture and way of life, we can gain perspective and knowledge and enrich the value of life. Such multiculturalism would benefit humanity because being cultured and understanding more than one perspective of life is important for acceptance, awareness, and open-mindedness towards other people and parts of the world.

                Another goal I want to achieve before I die it to be genuinely happy—simply happy and satisfied with my life. I would like to be happy with my job, friends, family, and general situation in life. But to do so, I have to stop worrying about the negative aspects of life, which are usually not as significant compared to the good things in life. In contrast, I should become more aware of things that are important in life. I think that the purpose of life should be to recognize the value of life and all positive aspects within it. It would be valuable for humanity to reach this mindset because more people would appreciate and be content with their lives as a result. Too many people are unsatisfied with their lives, take things for granted, and never recognize their good fortune when their lives could actually improve just by changing their attitude. Over all, people would begin to better understand the value of their lives.

                The last thing I want to accomplish before I die is to make others feel happy, wanted, and loved. I do not think that it is enough to feel happy or content yourself but I think it is a part of life to make others feel cared for as well. With each new addition of a friendship or relationship the value and worth of my life increases. As I mentioned earlier, it is part of humanity for a person to try to improve the quality of life of himself and those around him. We try to make a positive impact on others so that maybe their value of life or those in the future will be even greater than our own. Without this sense of impact, there would be almost no meaning of life. Over all, the lives of most people are spent trying to improve their conditions in life or those of other people. Without this purpose, the meaning of life would be limited.

Permanence and Impermanence

One of the defining characteristics of being human is that humans are aware that they will die. Some accept their fate, some avoid thinking about it, and some deny it. But in the end, every human being experiences death. In the epic Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim explains to Gilgamesh that the immortality he is seeking is unattainable: “There is no permanence” (106). The life of a human always leads toward the final stage of death—no one lives forever and all living things grow older every second that they are alive. At first, growth is developmental but then changes into a weakening as time goes by. In the end, everyone is left in the same physical condition of lifelessness. In the poem Orpheus and Eurydice by Ovid, Orpheus speaks to Pluto and Persephone, the rulers of the Underworld, about the nature of life and death: “All things are destined to be yours, and though we delay a while, sooner or later we hasten home.” Eventually, Pluto will rule over all living things because they die and enter his realm.

Although the idea of aging, death, and impermanence is straightforward and simple, many people do not accept it because the idea of not existing is terrifying. In today’s society, people attempt to minimize the idea of impermanence and to establish a sense of permanence, however futile it may be. Plastic surgery, make-up, and facial serums epitomize the yearning for youth, especially in the media. The image of youth on an aging person is praised while early balding and wrinkles are not in favor. Simply, society is obsessed with the idea of being forever young, no matter how unrealistic this idea is.

When humans die, they are physically in a place where wealth, social status, and personal influence have no significance. Utnapishtim tries to illustrate this idea to Gilgamesh: “From the days of old there is no permanence…What is there between the master and the servant when both have fulfilled their doom?” (107). Once life leaves a person’s body, there is no difference between one man and the next. As Hamlet muses in the gravedigger scene in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, all men become dirt or dust, no matter if he is Julius Caesar or Julius Caesar’s slave. Although this is true, a person can live life after death in the extra-physical aspects of life, such as impact, memories, and relationships. The reason why people try and work hard in life is to establish their name so that they are remembered. For some, it may be enough to be loved and missed while others feel that it is their duty to create a positive impact on humanity.

Many people try hard in life because they want to improve their own living conditions or those of others before they die. Ultimately, this is what establishes the meaning of life. The knowledge that death is inevitable in turn creates the awareness of a time limit; each individual has an amount of time to live before death. According to Utnapishtim, “Life and death they allot but the day of death they do not disclose” (107). Even though this time limit is set, no one can know when his time expires. Thus, a sense of urgency to live life to its fullest is present in the mindset of humans. People want to make a difference, create memories, and live comfortably before they die and their opportunity at life is over. Others want to appreciate the pleasures in life while they can. Siduri advices Gilgamesh to focus on the good things in life rather than seeking immortality: “As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man” (102). While death constitutes mortality, so does the meaning of life and appreciation of life’s blessings. A reason why people continue to live, work, and play is simply to experience living.

As mentioned before, people can establish a sense of immortality and eternity through their impact on other individuals or on society. Although Gilgamesh does not physically achieve mortality, his name lives on in the epic that is still read today. Even after his death, we still remember Gilgamesh’s effect on the Sumerians and the tales of his heroic conquests and search for immortality. The sense of eternal life is appealing to people who may have nothing else to live for. In certain religions, eternal life after death is a major part of its belief. Such an idea helps people be more optimistic about death and also influences them in their daily life—if an individual lives a good, moral life and benefits the community, he will be rewarded in the afterlife.

The idea or promise of an afterlife makes the eminent end of death less daunting. As well, those who feel that their lives are satisfactory and have meaning may be more comfortable with their mortality.

What is a Hero?

Many works of literature have one thing in common—a hero as the protagonist. A hero is someone who puts aside his or her personal wants and desires and works towards the greater good of the people or humanity. A hero’s actions reflect the will of the people and he will assume responsibility for the wellbeing of his community. As they develop this sense of duty, almost all heroes embark on a spiritual as well as physical journey before they discover what their true purpose in life is. For example, in the Roman epic the Aeneid, Aeneas must ignore his personal interests and desires throughout his journey because he has a duty to sail to Italy and found the Roman race. Aeneas did not volunteer to become the leader of his people and to self-exile himself from his past, but he realizes he must take on such a responsibility. Often, a hero goes against societal standards because his morals are on a level above that of the people. In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck Finn helps Jim, a runaway slave, escape. After embarking on a tumultuous spiritual and emotional journey within himself, Huck realizes that his friendship with Jim is more important than the obligation he has to society to turn Jim in.

A woman can be a hero if she exhibits the “expected” qualities, but heroines are less common in literature, history, and legends than male heroes are. The stereotyping of a hero as being male stems from the beginning of civilization. Men were typically hunters as women held the roles of gatherers and child-bearers. A sense of adventure accompanies the hunt and the stories of heroes focus on the journey the hero goes on, which often includes an adventure. The first epic, The Epic of Gilgamesh, set the scene for a male hero—a tradition that has carried on throughout history and even today. Men are associated with heroism because of how deep-seated gender roles are in society. However, even if women heroes are not common in literature, they still exist. I would consider Joan of Arc, Clara Barton, Dorothea Dix, and Susan B. Anthony to all be heroes because of their courageous acts, morality, and actions to aid the common good.

A hero must exhibit certain qualities or a specific conduct. Several of the Roman virtues emphasized during the Augustan Age—which Vergil frequently uses to describe Aeneas in the Aeneid—describe this conduct. For example, pietas and gravitas stress the idea of responsibility and devotion to the people while virtus represents the courage of the hero and iustitia, morality and justice. These specific virtues, although stemming from Roman culture, are vital to the conduct of any hero. In the book series Harry Potter, Harry exhibits all of these qualities. He takes on duties and challenges that are not normal for a teenager to undertake, even if he is a wizard. Harry feels obligated to defeat Voldemort and shows amazing courage, strength, and a sense of justice in his quest.

The purpose of a hero is to set a model for the rest of society to follow—to be selfless, work for the greater good, and uphold morality. We need heroes to counteract the corrupt and negative aspects of society and to instill inspiration in the people, thus leading the rest of humanity in the right direction. In a perfect world, everyone would act like a hero naturally with no set example to follow and there would be no need of an actual hero. No one would be considered a hero if everyone upheld their duty to benefit society, morality, and humanity. Considering this, Bertolt Brecht’s statement, "Unhappy the land that needs heroes," rings true. In society, a hero stands out from the rest of the people because of his elevated morality, sense of responsibility, and courage. A land that needs heroes is not made up of people who are courageous, moral, and selfless but of citizens who are below that level of virtue. Thus, a happy land would not need a hero because all of its inhabitants would already exhibit the ideal conduct of a hero.