I think Jimmy McGovern’s The Street is one
of the best British TV dramas ever. One of the many memorable episodes, like the
one I rewatched recently, involves a racist called Kieran getting credit for
saving a 7-year-old Polish girl, Anna, from a house fire, when, in fact, it was
actually his friend Duffy who committed the heroic act. But Duffy dares not
claim credit for his heroism because he fears it will jeopardise the invalidity
benefit he’s claiming. Huge tension ensues when Kieran willingly accepts all
the adulation while Duffy begrudgingly laments his lack of recognition.
During the episode, this got me thinking about something else; whether an act is still heroic if the person had no memory or awareness of it - and acted it out in a trance-like state, where they did not consciously undertake the deed through any sense of bravery or moral duty. Probably not, or at least, much less so. Put it this way, if the person claimed no memory or awareness of the good act, it seems inappropriate to reward them. But that being so, does the reverse also apply - that if someone acted out a wicked deed in a trance-like state, with no memory or awareness of it, should they go unpunished?
In one sense, I can understand the temptation to argue that if a lack memory or awareness negates positive desert, it similarly negates negative desert. But that can’t be wholly satisfactory for one key reason. Negated positive desert means that the hero is merely not afforded deserved recognition and adulation. But negated negative desert means the general public are not protected from a criminal who has not only harmed at least one victim, but may go on to harm others - so should be incarcerated on that basis.
