Printable View
Hey,
how do you define Heroism. Do you think Someone landing on a grenade to protect his fellow soliders should get a medal of honor? Should someone who gave up his life to protect another family's life be called a hero??
should be intersting debate,your views??
Yes and yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heroism
Heroism-
heroic conduct; courageous action: Pat's returning into the burning building was true heroism.
Hero-
1.a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
My view of a hero is anyone who does selfless acts that usually require a great deal of danger to help others or the greater good.
Not to be a spoilsport, but didn't we have a 4- or 5-page thread about just this subject recently?
Yes, and should it end up the same way I'll be as lenient as a brick...again.
My hero ! :gorgeous:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
Well I suppose all agree that if someone does something that is both in accordance to traditional ethical rules, and that has good consequences, he is a hero.
But if someone does something by the rules, following political correctness, but it turns out to have bad consequences - is he a hero? Or if someone does something against the ethical rules, but with good consequences - is he a hero? This makes the hero discussion closely related to the traditional discussion of rule ethics vs consequence ethics. The most interesting questions in that discussion are:
1. if you would kill [insert your most hated dictator here] when he's been in power long enough to prove that he wants some kind of massmurder, you would be guilty of slaying. But it could save millions of people to do it. Would it be correct to do it or not? Most here seem to agree that it would be correct to do it.
2. if killing plenty of persons would result in a better life for the survivors, would it be acceptable to kill those persons? For example "those persons" would typically refer to death penalty victims, or for someone like Lenin/Stalin it could be all anti-communists. Many ideologies which are today deemed as extremely evil have answered yes to this question.
3. is someone who acts against all rules, takes a huge risk, and turns out successful, a hero or a criminal or neutral?
4. is someone who follows the rules but is unlucky and creates horrible consequences a hero, a criminal, or a neutral?
5. should it depend on luck whether you're considered a hero or not, or on what you tried to do?
6. PR or a power position can often make someone take credit for something that was really the work of someone below him in the hierarchy, someone hidden and forgotten.
7. should we really try to be heroes at all? Isn't the desire to become a hero just a desire for power and influence, or sex and admiration from the opposite sex? Shouldn't we instead have it as our aim to achieve moral neutrality, of being neither good nor bad? Because many persons attempting to become heroes end up becoming not heroes but horrible villains.
Since I have no edit button I post my edit here:
insert a 3b too:
3b. someone acts against all rules, but does it in a way where he beforehand made a correct and realistic estimate of the consequences, and doesn't take risks. He turns out successful. Is he a hero or a criminal or a netural?
heroism = stupidity, anyone who risks there own life to save others surely isn't thinking too straight at the time - i honestly don't think i ever would, but i still admire them for it, its odd, because i kind of like and dislike heroism at the same time..... :dizzy2:
if a brave action saves lives, then it is probably a heroic action, ie, by putting youself in great danger for the benefit of others, its an act of heroism, i would also argue that a failed attempt of the same action is equally heroic... you dont have to be successful to be a hero, but it helps :2thumbsup:
That feeling is called jealousy.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
To me a hero is usually someone who is still alive after a great deed, though I am not sure what great deed that could be. If someone dies in an heroic way, he may be called a hero as well, but his heroism is of no more use to anyone. Personally I'd define a hero in the moment I hear about his deed or deeds or what he accomplished, I wouldn't put any definition down. And giving someone the medal of honor after seath is only good for his family, maybe it makes them feel a little bit better about his death, but it won't bring that person back.:no:
Sadly, i think you're right :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I don't think it's Stupid to be Heroic... Depending on the Sitituion
Risking your life to save a Kid in a Fire is Heroic
Going into a burning house to save your dog and/or cat is not
jumping on a grenade to save some of your sqaurd mates, is heroic
jumping on one to save prsioners of War is not
get the point??
Your point is that heroism exists only if it serves your own people, to me the guy who saves prisoners of war by jumping onto the grenade is more heroic than the one who does it for comrades, the simple fact that he did it for someone who was not his friend deserves more respect because it is out of the ordinary, an act of humanity regardless of stereotypes or personal preferences, in one word, it is selfless.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
I think you may think the same if the prisoners of war were Americans and an Iraqi soldier jumped onto the grenade to save them.
How do you define evil, how would you define anything, My definition could be far more radical than jumping on a grenade to save comrades, it could going into a fight knowing you would die, but in going you know that the time you buy could mean eventual victory (Thermopylae, cough cough sputter sputter), that jumping onto the grenade could be call an honorable act, or even noble, definitely deserving of some sort of medal. Heroism to me would have to be a self sacrifice for the greater good, though it needn't be your life, it would mean that you have put your life at risk with little chance of survival.
Superman would not classify as a hero in my books, his only weakness is Kryptonite, he can defeat anything from any distance with little chance of being harmed (Yes if someone is using Kryptonite against him then he being heroic even if he is being really stupid, he has heat vision for a reason duh).
Batman would be a hero, no super powers, completely mortal and he fights people with guns and other stuff, but it is that he can die from being shot by a stray bullet that makes him a hero to me, he puts his life on the line for a greater good.
Someone understands the concept of what makes an act heroic much in line with my own understanding. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What is the difference between the two acts?Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Again what is the difference between the two actsQuote:
jumping on a grenade to save some of your sqaurd mates, is heroic
jumping on one to save prsioners of War is not
Oh I get the point - but I shall not go there for now.Quote:
get the point??
Why? In both cases lives are being saved, with the other example i can see why rescuing an animal might be less importnat than a child, but all lives are equal, i would even argue that jumping on a grenade to save PoW is more heroic than for squad mates... :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
My definition of Heroism:
Someone who makes an act of courage out of good will, even though they didn't have to.
The soldier DIDN'T have to throw himself on a grenade to protect his fellow soldiers, but he did it out of good will, trying to keep his other teammates alive. Thats heroism to me.
I would regard this as more heroic than attempting to save your squad-mates.Quote:
jumping on one to save prsioners of War is not
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
A Animal can always be replace... your 3 year old son can't :no:
"Oh I get the point - but I shall not go there for now."
good,then don't Redleg.
Big, How is jumping on a grenade to save the very same people who trying to kill you heroic? Personally, I rather die from the grenade then save the POW's..
What? You'd rather just die needlessly, as opposed to doing it saving the lives of human beings who have surrendered, and are no longer trying to kill you?! Why don't you just shoot them yourself, get it over with.Quote:
Personally, I rather die from the grenade then save the POW's.
As to why I consider it more heroic, it shows a concern for the whole of humanity, and a recognition of the fact that for the most part these are people just like you, who simply happen to be on the other side.
The animal also dies. Once. Besides, heroism is, by nature, sentimentality and effort, not results -- the less instinctively required, the more effort it takes for one to act for others' sake; the more heroic.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Then you are not quite as heroic as the person who dares to save Prisoners of War. Every soldier in a war at one point or another probably have come to the realization that there might come a time where they will have to die in order for their comrades to live. Moreover, it is easier to fight for someone whom you know is also fighting with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
How many fight for those who themselves cannot fight? For those who might fight you back? How many gives that other cheek so many Christians so lightly claim they will?
It takes pure heroism and nobility of spirit to save the enemy. I myself know I don't have that kind of spirit.
All life is worth saving, regardless if its an animal in danger or a human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
You might want to look at some definitions. You seem to have an opinion that even goes against the ideas and code of conduct of a soldier, your opinion here goes against the moral code of being a human being. I wonder if you understand that its a military obligation of the soldier to safeguard any prisoners captured on the battlefield, one that if you neglect can lead to charges filled under the UCMJ. If you study history a little more closely you will find that several very brave men protected POWs at the cost of their own lives. Many of these men were not recognized for valor but it does not make their effort any less heroic.Quote:
"Oh I get the point - but I shall not go there for now."
good,then don't Redleg.
And in that your death would be meaningless. In that instance the greater good would be served by protecting the POW's since they are no longer capable of defending themselves on the battlefield.Quote:
Big, How is jumping on a grenade to save the very same people who trying to kill you heroic? Personally, I rather die from the grenade then save the POW's..
Your digging yourself into a very deep pit - one that you will find difficultly getting out of.
No and no. IMO you shouldn't reward concious stupidity. Which is what throwing yourself on a grenade falls under.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
I am not even going to read this. Its pointless, it has been completely debated to no effect. It will lead itself into another unpleasant arguement. Waste of time.
Here comes Lars, to save the day!
It looks as if BHC's fairly obvious motivation for starting this thread has played out.
Curse you King Warman!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Yes,I do realize that you will be charged under the UCMJ. It's funny how people always question how much I know, but yet say the most ironic things :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
"What? You'd rather just die needlessly, as opposed to doing it saving the lives of human beings who have surrendered, and are no longer trying to kill you?! Why don't you just shoot them yourself, get it over with."
Personally, I don't care if they trying to kill me or Not Big. They was trying to kill me and my sqaurd, Hell, they may have even kill some of my fellow comrades. And Yet, if a US Marine flips, you think I am going to jump on the grenade to save those Idoitc Iraqi Prisoners? Hell No.
And Lars, would you not give up your own life to protect your fellow comrades in Battle or would you like to see them dead or maim?.Would you not risk your own life to save your mother in a buring house, or would you just leave her to die :no:
So King, you argee with Lars then? Oh wow, that's nice :no:
"I am not even going to read this. Its pointless, it has been completely debated to no effect. It will lead itself into another unpleasant arguement. Waste of time."
Well, why you post here then? Don't post here unless you got something good to say. Common Sense People, Please Use it. :yes:
"Curse you King Warman!!"
same to you :)
Ah I see. Adieu, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Erm, no, I was making a joke. I think both you and Lars are way out, although at least he's consistent.Quote:
So King, you argee with Lars then? Oh wow, that's nice
Why would you think I was agreeing with him? That would completely contradict my earlier posts.
#1 No I wouldn't give up my own life. It's far too important to me. As for my theoritical comrades-in-arms it's their job to mind their own asses, not mine (depending on the position I'm holding in this sernario). As for wanting to see them dead or maimed. Depends, do I like them or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
#2 Probably not. It would really depend on whether there was a at least a 50/50 chance of all coming out intact.
That nailed it. The "didn't have to,... but did" bit is the essential element, I think. Yelling: "Grenade" to alert other nearby people satisfies the requirement of doing one's duty; even our negative Nova Scotian will admit that, I'm sure. Smothering the boomski with one's own body in a split-second decision, although arguably inefficient, we must assume a charitable motive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
p.s. Since the 1800's, US doctrine has been the 4 S's in handling prisoners in the field: Search, Silence Safeguard, and Speed. GI's are held responsible for the safe transport of prisoners, regardless of their previous combatant status.
Heroism means beating some fear that a person feels. People have different fears, therefore it changes from person to person. I don't really think that all people are scared of jumping onto a grenade to save their buddies, and you don't have to call that heroism in order to think highly of the self sacrifice that they made.
They have that phrase... 'above and beyond the call of duty'. If that applies to an action, there's a pretty good chance of it being classed as heroic.
Essentially, heroism is putting oneself in harm's way, in order to accomplish some higher objective. The harm can be physical, or mental...
Now, the 'higher objective' changes in this subjective world we live in - these days, saving the life of another is pretty much the only deed that satisfies, whereas there was once a time when one's honour was sufficient to drive one to such an act. And for some people, another's life is not important, it seems.
The simple fact that you would die for a man who just tryed to kill you is the sign of heroism. To care more for those around you and those who have trusted you with their lives is part of a heroic act. Being able to hide his own anger and disgust for the enemy and protect them set him apart from just saving another squadmember. A squadmember your around nearly all day, their nearly family, those men he saved were strangers. Truly a heroic act.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Your right, Redleg isnt BigTex.Quote:
Not Big
I'm BIGTEX
#1, well that's nice. It's nice to know you would leave your friend to gret his leg blowed off by a grenade or get killed because "your ass is more important".you real nice Lars, I like to be in the Same Humvee with you in a gunfight in Iraq.:no:
#2. And Oh that's nice. you going to leave your own Mother do Die. That's real nice of a Son.Boy, you such a man,aren't you?
just plain funny.
I got people who think it ok to go into Burning houses to save their pets, and got people who think it's not ok to Save their own Mothers. Boy, and they the same people who think I'm always wrong :no: .
I tell you a example of true Heroism, and since we are up to our own point of views, you can argee,disargee, or just don't say anything.
Octorber 3rd-4th,1993 (I think)
100 Soliders or so went into the town of Modgasdishu,Somilia, to capture several high ranking offciars from this one clan. Well, only was suppose to take 1 or 2 hours,that's it.
But Instead, they was stuck there till the 4th,lost 18 Soliders,2 Black Hawk helicopters, and 500-2000 (numbers are debately) Mitliamen were killed and thousands wounded.
Two Black Hawks Went down. Super Six One and Super Six Four. Super Six One was made to, before it was Overrun. Super Six Four wasn't so Lucky. Two Delta Snipers from a nearby Black Hawk roped down to protect the Surving Crew Members. (Mike Durant and one other guy was still alive I thought). The Two SNipers shot and killed groups of Somilies, with the help of the Crew Member/Members that was still alive. Sadly, it wasn't enough, and they was all Killed, Expect for Mike Durant, who was held hostage for 11-13 days untill the American UN Ambassor threated to Kill "Every Man,Woman,Child,Donkey,Goat,Tree,Bush" in the city.
Now Mind you, the Two Snipers know they proably would have died, but went down anyhow, hoping that the rescure guys could make it in that 15 minute or so time span. They Also known proably, that their bodies would be drag though the streets and muitlaied. They gave their own lives up, and got dragged though the streets, just to save 1 guy.
That's because Lars hold a cynical viewpoint -- "my life is always the most important" -- and a valid one by any means, if heartless to the rest of humanity. We have but one life. He just wants his to last as long as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Whereas your indication that you'd rather die than to save another human being because that person is not your friend, is double standard. You judge people differently because of their value to you, not because of themselves; thus, it no longer is so much heroism as cost-benefit calculation.
What's worse?
Stupidity maybe, but really, if you survived the grenade and your squad died and you got help later, wouldn't you feel guilty that you let them die? A squad is a group of people who work together as one, teamwork and helping each other out. Thinking about yourself in a time a whole squad will die is just selfish.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
You'd think so, but I really doubt Lars would. I just hope to God if I ever have to serve/do serve, that I won't have someone like Lars watching my back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
You'd be surprised. In combat, many things change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I'd much prefer to have a guy like Lars around, knowing clearly what he was and wasn't prepared to do. Much better than someone who's all mouth and trousers.
The former will probably do just what he said, and so is a known quantity. One can make decisions based on that honesty. And I have known a couple of men with his viewpoint that when the bullets were flying, excelled expectations in courage.
The latter man may either get you all killed by trying to be a hero or discover that combat is actually quite frightening and do the barest minimum necessary to keep himself alive. The man who swore to you that he'd cover your back might just be high-tailing it.
Until one has been there, it is really quite difficult to know which way you will go. And sometimes, the stress of battle can affect the mind so that the personality one had come to rely on changes. I once saw one of the bravest men I ever knew suddenly give up and sit weeping in the middle of the road. The incident that set this off was pretty minor compared to many we had gone through.
I still consider him one of the bravest men I ever knew - perhaps even more so because of his sudden humanity.
exactly... (phrased much better than i ever could :2thumbsup: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
if you survived the grenade and the rest of the squad had not that just means you were lucky and they were not....I would be sad that my team mates had died but I certainly wouldn´t wish I had died in their place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
A hero is a person who chooses to place himself in danger for the greater good.
With the caveat "as seen by a specific community which feels served by that greater good".Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
Islamic suicide bombers are seen as heroes by their community, for example.
But that's always been the case, hasn't it?
Your assuming that any squad mates I have would be my friends. Or at least people I don't hate. With my personality that's a tall order.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
You realize that in fires it's smoke not flames that kill you. You suffocate rather than burn up. Suffocation doesn't take long either.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
No. I have a remarkable ability to not feel guilt. That and chance or luck rules our lives as much as our concious decisions. That it would be completly random if the greande landed next to me or the other guy. That's life, you or I can't change it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
#1, that your own opinionQuote:
Originally Posted by lars573
#2, Really? I was so incompent of learning that when I was a 6 year old kid during Fire Prevention class:no:
You should be very careful of boasting about such an ability/trait. The inability to feel guilt is very similiar to the inablity to feel remorse about one's actions. This particlur trait is not something to be proud of, since it is basically an anti-social personality trait, one that is linked to self-destructive behavior (along with destructive behavior toward others).Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm
Not boasting. However it is true. And while I am anti-social it's more due to shiness and the anxeity it creates in social situations. I can't call people on the phone because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Based on experience. The majority of people I meet I wouldn't whiz on if they were on fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
so Lars, you so AntiSocial, You praticlly won't save anyone,even your own Mother (ironic eh) unless you liek them or had a 50/50 chance of getting out,because you that Anti-Social? I'll stop there..
While self-sacrifice, or the risk thereof, can be a great indicator of heroism, I don't think it's a necessary part of the definition. Basically, I think a hero is someone who demonstrates the values of their culture in a way that excels the behavior of their peers. Greek heroes were those of the highest martial and athletic ability, and seen as favored by the gods. Early Christian heroes were those who eschewed violence completely and were willing to face torture and death without complaint. Modern American heroes tend to be those who look out for the underdog, who show extraordinary levels of determination and resourcefulness, who are optimistic, etc. This could be a soldier on the battlefield, or a teacher in a high school. A hero is a person who exemplifies what we all wish we were. They take the things we hold important to a level beyond expectations. They make abstract values concrete in the form of an individual person.
Ajax
why is that anti-social? i would never attempt to rescue someone if there was more than a 50/50 chance of getting out... :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Scurvy, Please re-Read my Post again. I did not say that is Anti-Social.