Devaluation of the word 'heroes'

[3point14]

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.

You're right, I wouldn't. Brave, laudable, doing a job I really wouldn't want to do, but if you place these two in the hero category, then you either have to place all serving military personnel on the front line into the 'hero' category, or decide that they only gain hero status if they are killed in the line of duty. I think I'd like to reserve the hero tag for more than that. The Ghurkha in the story somewhere way above this post qualifies.

NB - I'm not so sure about the dog.

 

[ponderingturtle]

(This is more of a rant/vent.)

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

Really?

What does that do to the word, especially when one considers somone like Pat Tillman or Neil Peart*?

What did they (the sailors) do that made them heroes?

A lot of this depends on your religious views. If you believe that bringing the word of god to people will prevent the infinitely merciful god from sentencing them to eternal torture, then they selfless motivations and chose to assume great risk because of it. That and then being killed would fir in very will with Pat Tillman and such after all.

What trait did Tillman have that make it so different?

Was my grandfather's wife's first husband a hero? He as a doctor that chose to be a missionary in africa and was killed in the violence there. He gave up a lot of money rather like Tillman did, and assumed significant risk rather like Tillman.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

So people who make a situation worse by trying to help do qualify for the hero label then?

 

[3point14]

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

That's about it. As I say, there are some exceptions- WTC firemen and Apollo astronauts among them

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're right, I wouldn't. Brave, laudable, doing a job I really wouldn't want to do, but if you place these two in the hero category, then you either have to place all serving military personnel on the front line into the 'hero' category, or decide that they only gain hero status if they are killed in the line of duty. I think I'd like to reserve the hero tag for more than that. The Ghurkha in the story somewhere way above this post qualifies.

NB - I'm not so sure about the dog.

So then you wouldn't classify Tillman as a hero then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's about it. As I say, there are some exceptions- WTC firemen and Apollo astronauts among them

So by this definition are either of the people sited in the OP heroes? Tillman shouldn't be, I am not sure what the band guy did that made people want to classify him in that manner so I can not comment.

 

[3point14]

So then you wouldn't classify Tillman as a hero then.

No. Laudable. Clearly a very special individual and worthy of high praise, but no, no more a hero than anyone that signs up for any military duty and knows that their job will involve getting shot at. The fact that he gave up so much more to go to war makes him a serious grade 'A' patriot and a man of moral courage, but not a hero, no.

 

[3point14]

So by this definition are either of the people sited in the OP heroes? Tillman shouldn't be, I am not sure what the band guy did that made people want to classify him in that manner so I can not comment.

Tillman I've answered. I don't know enough about the other fellow to comment.

Look, as Gumboot said, originally to be a hero you needed to be half a god. The son or daughter of a mortal and a god. Half immortal. If the word is to retain any meaning it needs to be reserved for when it's needed or the press will have to invent the term Úberhero for those who would previously have been heros and my blood pressure just couldn't deal with that while reading the papers.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Tillman I've answered. I don't know enough about the other fellow to comment.

Look, as Gumboot said, originally to be a hero you needed to be half a god. The son or daughter of a mortal and a god. Half immortal. If the word is to retain any meaning it needs to be reserved for when it's needed or the press will have to invent the term Úberhero for those who would previously have been heros and my blood pressure just couldn't deal with that while reading the papers.

If we are going to say that words have to remain static in meaning, I guess drug users need to give back Smack, Crack, Dope, Grass, Weed, and Pot, while homosexuals better give Gay back and teenagers need to return cool, hot, bad, and probably a lot of others..

 

[3point14]

If we are going to say that words have to remain static in meaning, I guess drug users need to give back Smack, Crack, Dope, Grass, Weed, and Pot, while homosexuals better give Gay back and teenagers need to return cool, hot, bad, and probably a lot of others..

I think you're shifting the ground here.

I realise that lanaguage is mutable or we'd all be speaking like Chaucer, but in this instance I would like to retain the word 'hero' for what I view to be truly heroic acts therfore I use it accordingly.

I realise that the rest of the world really doesn't give a fetid dingos kidney about my desire to reserve the word for acts of high courage way above and beyond the call or expectation of duty. I'd still rather limit the term hero so it doesn't include everyone in a uniform.

 

[gumboot]

That's about it. As I say, there are some exceptions- WTC firemen and Apollo astronauts among them

So why do you consider Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung to be a hero? He did exactly what his job required him to do. Nothing more.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think you're shifting the ground here.

I realise that lanaguage is mutable or we'd all be speaking like Chaucer, but in this instance I would like to retain the word 'hero' for what I view to be truly heroic acts therfore I use it accordingly.

I realise that the rest of the world really doesn't give a fetid dingos kidney about my desire to reserve the word for acts of high courage way above and beyond the call or expectation of duty. I'd still rather limit the term hero so it doesn't include everyone in a uniform.

I think that you are too late.

Besides, most people likely don't agree with your definition.

For example, your system means that if a man runs into a burning building and saves a child from it, he is a hero as long as he's not a firefighter. That doesn't make sense to me. Two people can do the same thing, but if one of them is doing it as part of a job, you negate his heroism because of that.

 

[3point14]

So why do you consider Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung to be a hero? He did exactly what his job required him to do. Nothing more.

Indeed. I think it's that he did it so very, very well. So much better than many, many others, he did it after his hand had been largely blown off and long after most (I think) would have lain down and given up. It's so very extraordinary that I think he deserves the term.

It's not an exact science.

I think that you are too late.

Besides, most people likely don't agree with your definition.

For example, your system means that if a man runs into a burning building and saves a child from it, he is a hero as long as he's not a firefighter. That doesn't make sense to me. Two people can do the same thing, but if one of them is doing it as part of a job, you negate his heroism because of that.

No, most people don't, it seems. Which means that we end up with everyone in uniform being a 'hero' which I really (sorry) don't think is the case.

And yes, oddly, I really do think that there's a difference between a man whose job it is to rescue someone from a burning building and someone whose job it isn't.

 

[Rasmus]

So why do you consider Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung to be a hero? He did exactly what his job required him to do. Nothing more.

Also, he had no choice. He couldn't run away or give up. To do so would have cost him his life - so he was not risking his life for the benefit of others, he was struggling for his own survival.

What could he have done differently? He could have died - so his actions simply boil down to "not panicking and not giving up". He said so himself: He considered himself dead either way.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

link

So hero or idiot?

In that case, both.

He's certainly very brave. However, bravery doesn't always equate with heroism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In that case, both.

If he had died would people regard him at all as a hero? It makes me wonder what role does death play in if someone is a hero.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Good point.

Plus, there's the fact that he didn't really rescue the woman.

He reached her just when a boat did. So she probably would have been pulled to safety anyway. If the boat, piloted by another Good Samaritan, had arrived 10 minutes later, I'd be more likely to call him a hero.

And that's problematic. Why do external factors he had no control over make what he did any more or less heroic, just cause it would have made his help more necessary and would have made for a better story? Either way, he jumped off the bridge. And he didn't know that help was on its way.

 

[gumboot]

And that's problematic. Why do external factors he had no control over make what he did any more or less heroic, just cause it would have made his help more necessary and would have made for a better story? Either way, he jumped off the bridge. And he didn't know that help was on its way.

I think if he didn't know the boat was coming, he's heroic. If he did know the boat was coming, he's an idiot.

 

[gumboot]

Indeed. I think it's that he did it so very, very well. So much better than many, many others, he did it after his hand had been largely blown off and long after most (I think) would have lain down and given up. It's so very extraordinary that I think he deserves the term.

It's not an exact science.

It's not a science at all. It's an argument from personal incredulity. Because you think a normal soldier would have given up, you think his actions are extraordinary, and therefore he's a hero.

Did you not read Rifleman Gurung's own statement?

I had to fight because there was no other way. I felt I was going to die anyway, so I might as well die standing on my feet. All I knew was that I had to go on and hold them back. I am glad that helped the other soldiers in my platoon, but they would have all done the same thing.

My bolding.

By your own definition, he's not a hero.

 

[gumboot]

No, most people don't, it seems. Which means that we end up with everyone in uniform being a 'hero' which I really (sorry) don't think is the case.

What are your thoughts on a gradient of "heroism"? You seem to regard it as a binary status, whereby once you perform above a certain undetermined level you become a hero, but before you're not.

What are your thoughts on an alternative approach whereby different actions make a person increasingly heroic, whereby, say a fireman running into a burning building to save someone (which, incidentally, is not a normal part of their job) might be heroic, but someone with no training, no knowledge of fires and no equipment doing the same would be substantially further along the "heroic" scale.