Devaluation of the word 'heroes'

[Cayvmann]

In which case everyone in the military, police, fire services are automatically heroes, whether they get the opportunity to place their life in danger to aid someone else or not, because the potential is there.

Potential heroes maybe. Nobody gets a pass. If they are never really tested, then nobody knows if they qualify. Sorry.

Some of those people mentioned also display exactly the opposite of heroism, in the line of duty. Not necessarily heroes at all.

 

[thenigotoffthebus]

I believe the Sun newspaper in the UK is contractually obliged to use the word 150 times a paper!

I think they are also contractually obliged to point out physical flaws in the bad guys e.g:

"Balding monster Jones was jailed for life" yet when reporting on a good guy they would never say "Balding hero Jones rescued several people from the fire"

By all means describe the bad guy as a monster but why include the balding part? Its as if there is an implication that the baldness somehow contributed to the monstrous tendencies.

The British tabloid press eh, gotta love em

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think they are also contractually obliged to point out physical flaws in the bad guys e.g:

"Balding monster Jones was jailed for life" yet when reporting on a good guy they would never say "Balding hero Jones rescued several people from the fire"

By all means describe the bad guy as a monster but why include the balding part? Its as if there is an implication that the baldness somehow contributed to the monstrous tendencies.

The British tabloid press eh, gotta love em

The press is full of weird conventions. Those accused of crimes always get their middle names printed, those who are victims do not. If a woman with grandkids is in the news she'll be referred to as a grandmother but if it's a man with grandkids they won't call him a grandfather. Everybody's ages and professions are always mentioned, whether it's relevant or not (and it usually isn't).

 

[3point14]

I think that all Astronauts fit into the heroic work category. Strapping yourself into a flying bomb and waiting for it to hurl you into a vacuum takes guts.

I think that there has to be an element of altruism to an act to be 'heroic'. While there is undoubtedly danger inherent in spaceflight, I rather think that (nearly) all of us here would accept those dangers for a chance to be able to float around looking at the world from LEO and that those who get to do it completely understand the dangers involved and wholeheartedly accept them as part of the (extremely rewarding) job. Without meaning any offence, I think this disqualifies astronaughts (in the main) from hero status.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I may get some strong opposition to this but I find that the alleged heroism of police officers, firefighters, EMTs, soldiers, astronauts, pilots, lifeguards, etc. is somewhat mitigated by the fact that they a) actively chose to put themselves in a dangerous job and, b) are specifically trained to handle dangerous situations.

You signed up for it. No one forced you to do it. You knew what it would be like. When crazy things happen to you, that's nothing unusual or extraordinary. That was part of the job description.

And you know how to handle it (for the most part). You are much less likely to be harmed doing it than some poor devil who got caught up in a similar situation.

A civilian who runs into a burning building or disarms a robber is more of a hero.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think that there has to be an element of altruism to an act to be 'heroic'. While there is undoubtedly danger inherent in spaceflight, I rather think that (nearly) all of us here would accept those dangers for a chance to be able to float around looking at the world from LEO and that those who get to do it completely understand the dangers involved and wholeheartedly accept them as part of the (extremely rewarding) job. Without meaning any offence, I think this disqualifies astronaughts (in the main) from hero status.

I don't think that "understanding the dangers and accepting them" should diaqualify people, otherwise there'd be no heroes, because part of it is understanding the dangers and accepting them anyway.

I'd also note that while Astronauts have a job that we might envy, I would doubt that anyone is an astronaut just for the chance to "be able to float around looking at the world from LEO". They do it because they believe that in doing their missions they are helping to build a better world for all of us, be it pitting a satelite into orbit, doing research, or just taking supplies to the ISS. They aren't going up there for a fun jaunt about the Earth to see the sights.

 

[bigred]

(This is more of a rant/vent.)

I heard the four Americans who were killed by pirates reffered to as "heroes".

Really?

No, not "really." And water's wet. What village idiot did you hear saying this? Happily I have not.

To be a hero requires bravery. To be brave means to choose to face danger and risk to one's self for the greater good.

Good grief. I feel like I'm explaining how 1+1=2.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

sorry, haven't really read the whole thread properly, but here in NZ, the USAR teams have been described as heroes, which I think is appropriate, considering that they are risking their lives to save others from collapsed buildings.
in this modern day and age, rescue missions are quite safe, but because of the unpredictability of earthquakes, there was always a chance that another huge aftershock could happen, and further collapses could happen.
when asked what they thought about being called heroes, they replied that they don't really think about that, because they are just doing their job. (or something along the lines of that)

I do think they are true heroes, I can't imagine what it must be like. They have done a great job, rescuing around 50 people. unfortunately they have pulled out about 3 times that number who didn't survive, which must make the job so much harder.


as for the Chilean miners, I wouldn't call the miners heroes, the heroes are the ones who went down to help bring the miners back up, especially the one who was the last up, because there was always the chance that something could break, and they could get stuck down there.



May the 163 victims of the Christchurch Quake found so far rest in peace...

 

[gumboot]

when asked what they thought about being called heroes, they replied that they don't really think about that, because they are just doing their job. (or something along the lines of that)

In my experience, if you think someone's a hero, and you suggest it to them, and they respond along the lines of the above, they're probably a hero.

 

[3point14]

I don't think that "understanding the dangers and accepting them" should diaqualify people, otherwise there'd be no heroes, because part of it is understanding the dangers and accepting them anyway.

I'd also note that while Astronauts have a job that we might envy, I would doubt that anyone is an astronaut just for the chance to "be able to float around looking at the world from LEO". They do it because they believe that in doing their missions they are helping to build a better world for all of us, be it pitting a satelite into orbit, doing research, or just taking supplies to the ISS. They aren't going up there for a fun jaunt about the Earth to see the sights.

I see what you mean. I just don't think it counts as heroic when they're are people queuing up for the job. Heroism is something that is thrust upon a person, I don't think it can be sought. Just my thought.

 

[gumboot]

I see what you mean. I just don't think it counts as heroic when they're are people queuing up for the job. Heroism is something that is thrust upon a person, I don't think it can be sought. Just my thought.

Just because you chose a job that might be construed as "heroic" doesn't mean that's why you chose that job. And bear in mind that when we talk of these upper echelon jobs like astronauts, there might be people queuing up to do it, but the people queuing up aren't random civilians fresh out of university looking to start a career. Many of them are already doing courageous and selfless things, and are looking for further that desire to help and better mankind. They already are heroic, to some extent.

Your "sought" vs "thrust upon" contrast doesn't seem to really be a very good comparison. One suggests a lack of choice about the situation, but the other doesn't just indicate there was a choice, but rather that the person desired to be heroic.

My understanding of heroism is that it occurs when a person is presented with a choice of either turning from danger, or confronting it, and confronting danger primarily benefits others, rather than them personally.

So for example, the passengers on UA93 are heroic because I suspect they had a pretty good idea of how slim their chances of successfully seizing the aircraft were. The probability was that, either way, they were dead. However by directly engaging danger, instead of "hiding" from it by passively remaining in their seats and hoping for the best, they forced the hijackers to crash the plane and therefore saved the lives of those who would have been targeted by the flight.

In contrast, the crew of US Airways Flight 1549 were not heroes because in trying to safely ditch the aircraft they benefited just as much as the other passengers.

 

[gumboot]

To be a hero requires bravery. To be brave means to choose to face danger and risk to one's self for the greater good.

Not that it's necessarily a text book definition, but I've always liked the distinction:

Brave: doing something dangerous because you didn't know it was dangerous
Courageous: doing something dangerous despite knowing it was dangerous

ETA.

Or an alternative:

Brave: fearlessly doing something dangerous
Courageous: fearfully doing something dangerous

 

[3point14]

Just because you chose a job that might be construed as "heroic" doesn't mean that's why you chose that job. And bear in mind that when we talk of these upper echelon jobs like astronauts, there might be people queuing up to do it, but the people queuing up aren't random civilians fresh out of university looking to start a career. Many of them are already doing courageous and selfless things, and are looking for further that desire to help and better mankind. They already are heroic, to some extent.

Your "sought" vs "thrust upon" contrast doesn't seem to really be a very good comparison. One suggests a lack of choice about the situation, but the other doesn't just indicate there was a choice, but rather that the person desired to be heroic.

My understanding of heroism is that it occurs when a person is presented with a choice of either turning from danger, or confronting it, and confronting danger primarily benefits others, rather than them personally.

So for example, the passengers on UA93 are heroic because I suspect they had a pretty good idea of how slim their chances of successfully seizing the aircraft were. The probability was that, either way, they were dead. However by directly engaging danger, instead of "hiding" from it by passively remaining in their seats and hoping for the best, they forced the hijackers to crash the plane and therefore saved the lives of those who would have been targeted by the flight.

In contrast, the crew of US Airways Flight 1549 were not heroes because in trying to safely ditch the aircraft they benefited just as much as the other passengers.

I still make the distinction between those who actively seek out danger and take a career path that exposes them to danger and to those that merely find themselves in a dangerous situation and go above and beyond the call of duty - it's that 'above and beyond' that makes a hero. Astronaughts are just dong their job. I really think this disqualifies them from being heroes. This does not mean that I don't admire them and believe them to be couragous, they clearly have balls of brass to do what they do, but I don't think it makes the heroes. It makes them astronaughts, people who have my respect and admiration, but not heroes.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I see what you mean. I just don't think it counts as heroic when they're are people queuing up for the job. Heroism is something that is thrust upon a person, I don't think it can be sought. Just my thought.

I'd note that people queue up to be police and firefighters too, and I doubt that anyone would skimp on calling them heroes. Likewise I doubt that many outside the HB crowd would skimp on calling Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin heroes, yet when you get right down to it, did they really do anything more heroic than those that flew the first shuttle mission after Challanger?

 

[3point14]

I'd note that people queue up to be police and firefighters too, and I doubt that anyone would skimp on calling them heroes. Likewise I doubt that many outside the HB crowd would skimp on calling Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin heroes, yet when you get right down to it, did they really do anything more heroic than those that flew the first shuttle mission after Challanger?

Er, I do skimp on calling police and firefighters heroes. I just think they're very brave people doing a job that requires courage. I don't think they're heroes most of the time. There may be wiggle room in the margins (Apollo astronauts, firefighters in WTC) but in the main if you're doing the job you're paid for under normal circumstances then you don't get hero status.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you're hinting at somethng here, which is related to my Challenger and Columbia post.

Dying in a tragic and/or shocking manner doesn't make you a hero.

So why are they not heroes and Patt Tillman is one? That they could have earned more on a different safer and more lucrative career is pretty much a given for any astronaut, and in all the cases they died do to other peoples mistakes and screw ups, and not a personal choice or anything on their part.

So why regard one so differently than the other?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Er, I do skimp on calling police and firefighters heroes. I just think they're very brave people doing a job that requires courage. I don't think they're heroes most of the time. There may be wiggle room in the margins (Apollo astronauts, firefighters in WTC) but in the main if you're doing the job you're paid for under normal circumstances then you don't get hero status.

I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

For instance, I'd consider these two heroes, but since they were just doing their jobs, I guess you wouldn't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A civilian who runs into a burning building or disarms a robber is more of a hero.

Daniel Santos said yesterday he knew it was crazy to leap 130 feet off the Tappan Zee Bridge, but when you see a woman drowning, you do what you have to do.

"I just prayed and closed my eyes and I didn't even think about the bad things that could happen to me," said the 21-year-old mechanic, who took his brave leap to rescue a suicidal woman.

link

So hero or idiot?

 

[gumboot]

I still make the distinction between those who actively seek out danger and take a career path that exposes them to danger and to those that merely find themselves in a dangerous situation and go above and beyond the call of duty - it's that 'above and beyond' that makes a hero. Astronaughts are just dong their job. I really think this disqualifies them from being heroes. This does not mean that I don't admire them and believe them to be couragous, they clearly have balls of brass to do what they do, but I don't think it makes the heroes. It makes them astronaughts, people who have my respect and admiration, but not heroes.

So you believe a hero only becomes a hero when presented with a danger beyond the expected scope of their line of work?

 

[PhantomWolf]

link

So hero or idiot?

There's often a very thin line between the two...