The Banality of Heroism

Hannah Aarendt argues that people who do evil do so not because they are special in any way, but simply because they are ordinary humans put in a certain position. Millgram and Zimbardo conducted experiments where they argued for outside causes(authority and obedience) as the cause of evil, not character flaws.

While in the shower this morning, I was thinking about heroism. Does it work the same? Do people act heroically not because they are great persons, but simply because of outside forces and the specific situation they are in?

No - I don't think it does, people do evil because it's safer than sticking out and getting shot.

Heroism is tanding up to get shot, it's hard.

dont know, many people regarded as heroes have said what horetore is asking now, they do not regard themselves as heroes but as people who were put in a special situation and did what they thought was the best thing. it might false modesty, it might not be.

i guess its too black and white anyway, there many different types of heroism and than there is the question of how much is in the eye of the beholder. Are there any heroes that people have never heard and thought of as heroes? And are there any who do not deserve that title and respect. my guess would be yes, which means that there should be some objective criterion for heroism which is quite hard i think because how can it possible include all these different types of "heroism".

Millgram showed humanity is capable of anything when they are not responsible themselve, I expect it to be the same for heroism. It's an interesting question.

IMO being a hero is not undertaking an action, but undertaking that action with foreknowledge of the risks.

~:smoking:

Zimbardo is a hack and his experiment doesn't show anything like what people think it does. He took some college age kids in the 70's and put them into a role playing game and then gave detailed instructions to the jailors about how to act like the fascists they all knew prison guards were.

Those who do the greatest evil are often sociopaths or ideological fanatics. Saints are often quasi-religious zealots as well. It's not situational.

It's not at all clear what "ordinary person" is supposed to mean, and "Evil" has unclear implications as well.

People in very stressful situations often can't keep it together. Those who are able to keep calm often do things we think heroic. Etc.

You must be mistaken with the Asch experiment, people will really go really far. Best example is real-life, the mutiny on the Bounty, it really would shame anything Conrad wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Zimbardo is a hack and his experiment doesn't show anything like what people think it does. He took some college age kids in the 70's and put them into a role playing game and then gave detailed instructions to the jailors about how to act like the fascists they all knew prison guards were.

---

I'm not sure what your point is. The lesson learned from the experiment is how easy it is to knock out the moral compass. Simply change the setting and people will volonteerly play along, even if they hurt like hell by doing it.

Some types of what's getting decribed as heroic, would certainly be descibed as reckless in another situation. And people certainly need to be in a situation that needs heroes to be a hero. Saving people from a burning building needs a burning building so to speak. But there's some traits that helps for becoming heroic. Acting under duress is one. Inspirational and/or positive and charismatic is another. Notable history or physical traits is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

IMO being a hero is not undertaking an action, but undertaking that action with foreknowledge of the risks.

~:smoking:

---

so robbing a bank is heroic?

Brave, perhaps. Since a hero is considered positive, only actions that are positive could be considered "heroic". But of course that depends on one's outlook.

~:smoking:

I think that some acts of evil and heroism are probably situation-ally driven, but that would probably explain more of "bad" and "good" than what we consider "evil" or "heroic". Those situations usually conote extremes in behavior and, from what i've seen, come from tempering yourself and your attitudes over time. For example, I doubt that someone would go from being an honest and actually caring person to being a sadistic child torturing rapist and murderer based on a situation. Equally, I doubt that a person who regularly skirts responsibilities and burns other people when it is convenient for them would put their life on the line to save someone else.

As with most things, extremes take practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Brave, perhaps. Since a hero is considered positive, only actions that are positive could be considered "heroic". But of course that depends on one's outlook.

~:smoking:

---

allright, can relate to that. What you say about brave made me think of some questions, can there be heroism without bravery? how do you call someone who is doing something heroic but with malintent (like negative heroism, because like you say, heroism can only be positive). an example, if one guy fought off 5 attackers to defend a random stranger, we'd call him a hero. if he did it to rob that stranger, how would we call it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Brave, perhaps. Since a hero is considered positive, only actions that are positive could be considered "heroic". But of course that depends on one's outlook.

---

Old story of a soldier jumping upon a grenade to save his fellow soldiers from death is often a example of heroism. Might be brave and considered "stupid" in the sense of the action to one self, but it is the whole idea of putting other people before yourself, even as for personal risk.

Would throwing yourself on a grenade even do anything? I can't help but wonder if the human body would be able to negate an explosion and wouldn't any shrapnel would just pass through with minimal power loss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Old story of a soldier jumping upon a grenade to save his fellow soldiers from death is often a example of heroism. Might be brave and considered "stupid" in the sense of the action to one self, but it is the whole idea of putting other people before yourself, even as for personal risk.

---

He probably found something before his feet and fell on the genade because of it. Better story that he threw himself on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Would throwing yourself on a grenade even do anything? I can't help but wonder if the human body would be able to negate an explosion and wouldn't any shrapnel would just pass through with minimal power loss?

---

A body, provided the torso is on top of the grenade and not just a hand or leg, will mitigate most of the damage.

In ROTC last week we learned how to check a dead body for boobytraps such as a grenade underneath the body. If there is one, you roll the body back on top of the grenade and either roll away or lie on top of the body, depending on who you ask. Either way, the body will take most of the damage and leave you and those around you with minimal harm.

EDIT: also the fact that most of the soldiers who jump on grenades are wearing some sort of body armor or flak vest, which further helps containing the damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Old story of a soldier jumping upon a grenade to save his fellow soldiers from death is often a example of heroism. Might be brave and considered "stupid" in the sense of the action to one self, but it is the whole idea of putting other people before yourself, even as for personal risk.

---

That's a great example to use. If I remember correctly, it was an american soldier on patrol in Iraq, right?

So, the question is why did he throw himself on that grenade? It must be assumed that it was an instinctive action, I can't imagine him thinking anything, much less weighing the options. Was it a special character trait, or was it something that many others, if not most, would have done if put in that same situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's a great example to use. If I remember correctly, it was an american soldier on patrol in Iraq, right?

So, the question is why did he throw himself on that grenade? It must be assumed that it was an instinctive action, I can't imagine him thinking anything, much less weighing the options. Was it a special character trait, or was it something that many others, if not most, would have done if put in that same situation?

---

There was a British Marine who calmly lay down on top of an IED in Iraq - he calculated that he would probably survive as he was wearing his large pack - he did.

But only just, if he had laid slightly lower, one of the fragments would have gone through his neck.

Then there's the guy who went back into he APC to pull his section clear while it was being strafed by an American A-10. Got the George Cross for that one, as Americans aren't the "enemy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's a great example to use. If I remember correctly, it was an american soldier on patrol in Iraq, right?

So, the question is why did he throw himself on that grenade? It must be assumed that it was an instinctive action, I can't imagine him thinking anything, much less weighing the options. Was it a special character trait, or was it something that many others, if not most, would have done if put in that same situation?

---

Its happened more than once:

Quote:

---

On December 19, 1941 at the Battle of Hong Kong, Canadian Army Company Sergeant Major John Robert Osborn jumped on a grenade, sacrificing himself to save his men. He was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

On November 7, 1943 at Bougainville, Marine Sergeant Herbert J. Thomas, Jr deliberately fell on a grenade, sacrificing himself protecting nearby Marines.

On September 1, 1950, near Yongsan, Korea, U.S. Army Private First Class David M. Smith noticed an enemy grenade lobbed into his company's emplacement. Pfc. Smith shouted a warning to his comrades and, fully aware of the odds against him, flung himself upon it. Although he was mortally wounded in this display of valor, his act saved 5 men from injury or death.

On February 11, 1954, IDF private Nathan Elbaz was disarming grenades when he noticed one of the grenade's safeties had slipped. He grabbed the grenade and ran from the tent but realized he wouldn't be able to throw the grenade away without harming some of his friends, so he smothered the explosion with his body.[3]

On February 23, 1971, a M35 2½ ton cargo truck was ambushed by a squad of NVA soldiers near An Khê. At one point during the firefight, an NVA soldier threw a fragmentation grenade into the truck's compartment. 21-year-old Specialist Four Larry G. Dahl was the only occupant who heard the grenade land into the truck. Realizing that there was not sufficient time to return it, he immediately threw himself on top of the grenade, saving his comrades' lives but at the cost of his own. Dahl was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

On April 14, 2004, near Husaybah, Iraq, Jason Dunham used his body and helmet to shield others from a grenade explosion - but died shortly afterward from his injuries.

On July 26, 2006, IDF Major Roi Klein, during the Battle of Bint Jbeil jumped on a grenade thrown into the house where Klein and his unit were present and stopped the explosion with his body.

On September 29, 2006 in Iraq, United States Navy SEAL Michael A. Monsoor, died after falling on a grenade.[1]

On Dec. 4, 2006 in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, 19 year old U.S. Army Spc. Ross A. McGinnis was killed instantly when he used his body to smother a grenade, saving the lives of four nearby soldiers.

In 2008 near Sangin in Afghanistan Matthew Croucher used his body and rucksack to pin a grenade to the floor. Suffering "just a nose bleed" as a result [2].

---

From Wikipedia.

Why did these people do what they did? If I had to guess, it was because they loved their fellow soldiers more than they loved themselves.

I think a more interesting question at this point is why HoreTore wants to banalise heroism - the most likely answer seems to be that as a socialist he doesn't believe in extraordinary individuals, and is therefore trying to make heroism "ordinary" so that it will fit into his worldview.

If heroism was ordinary, society wouldn't make it into a big deal when it occurs.

heroism can be ordinary as in ordinary people doing something extraordinary (or under extraordinary circumstances) as opposed to a hero being an extra ordinary person doing something in a situation ordinary people would not. and thus society would still make a big deal out of it.

my opinion is that they are both valid and both occur. sometimes a person is just extraordinary and he does stuff normal people would not do or achieve, for example Nelson Mandela or gandhi. Sometimes it is an extra ordinary situation and an ordinary person does something not all but still more others would do and pull off, like saving someone from a wreckage or from drowning.

Is there more to heroism than "socially integrative behavior under duress"?

Whether the single mom working three jobs or the soldier giving up his spot on the chopper out of the kessel...

But the more contested definitions are interesting: what about deliberately socially disruptive actions, and not necessarily under duress (from more than a chronically 'degenerate' society, at least).

On these terms, the successful bomb-lobber seems distinct from the previous examples. Is there another formulation that would link them?

As for the causes of heroism, well, that's a matter of value: what the hero values - this informs action - and what the labelers value - this informs the selective appellation of "hero".

In sum: there's nothing banal about the unusual or exceptional - by definition; on the other hand, the roots are...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

As for the causes of heroism, well, that's a matter of value: what the hero values - this informs action - and what the labelers value - this informs the selective appellation of "hero".

---

...which then explains why if you ask most soldiers who are labelled a hero by society if they consider themselves heroes, they will most likely answer that they do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think a more interesting question at this point is why HoreTore wants to banalise heroism - the most likely answer seems to be that as a socialist he doesn't believe in extraordinary individuals, and is therefore trying to make heroism "ordinary" so that it will fit into his worldview.

---

I am always fascinated by your incredible ability to make things personal.

Once again though, that accusation belongs in the dustbin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I am always fascinated by your incredible ability to make things personal.

Once again though, that accusation belongs in the dustbin.

---

You made a post I consider exceptionally weird - working out why you did is more interesting than your OP.

I can certainly answer that question:

Because I was thinking about Hannah Aarendt in the shower, specifically whether or not it can be applied broader. Heroism seems like a good starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

...which then explains why if you ask most soldiers who are labelled a hero by society if they consider themselves heroes, they will most likely answer that they do not.

---

It probably is also influenced by not wanting to appear as glory hunters. The people knowing the hero would probably know if it's the case, but not the population at large.

I would say that the difference you're after Horetore, is exceptionality. Can you make a structure with more heroes? Yes, by making every move made more exceptional, so in the eye of the normal population, it's huge, while in the eye of those inside this structure, it's a much smaller step. By constantly risking your life, the step of doing something extremely risky to save someone is less extreme, for example.

But the difference compared to banal evil is that heroics are always exceptional. The reverse, in the prison of hell isn't the normal guards, it's those everyone finds much crueler than the rest.
Banal heroics on the other hand is a nice world, that would have less of the grand heroics, since it's needed less exceptionality in such a world.

So the boring conclusion is that outside forces and the specific situation are major players and so is also the personality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I can certainly answer that question:

Because I was thinking about Hannah Aarendt in the shower, specifically whether or not it can be applied broader. Heroism seems like a good starting point.

---

Which completely misses the point of heroics - as others have shown.

Why would you even think heroism could be banal?

How much are you worth HoreTore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Which completely misses the point of heroics - as others have shown.

Why would you even think heroism could be banal?

---

This thread has a lot of good responses from a number of people who are not ideologically blinded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

How much are you worth HoreTore?

---

About 50 bucks an hour according to my employer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This thread has a lot of good responses from a number of people who are not ideologically blinded.

---

None of them agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

None of them agree with you.

---

Since I haven't offered any opinions at all, it would be weird for anyone to "agree".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Since I haven't offered any opinions at all, it would be weird for anyone to "agree".

---

You imply that you are of the opinion that heroism is on more of the banal side of things.

he did not really imply, he was merely posing a hypothetical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because I was thinking about Hannah Aarendt in the shower

---

Whatever makes you happy ~;p

As for your original question, now that I think about it, I guess there's something to say for the position that most human individuals are capable of both doing great evil or good deeds, depending on their situation and their state of mind.

I imagine that some heroic deeds were done in the heat of the moment, and the person doing it might not have done the heroic thing if he had time to ponder his actions. And also the other way around - people who are naturally cautious and timid, but with strong willpower, might be able to sacrifce themselves after making a conscious decision.

I'm not sure if it's plausible that someone would by his own initiative sacrifice himself because he thought it was expected of him as opposed to genuine altruism. I wouldn't rule it out.

Heroic deeds are still admirable even if you take a down-to-earth approach and examine the reasons and motivations, of course.