How do you Define Heroism?

**Ice** · 12-15-2006, 17:14

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

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.

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.

**Lemur** · 12-15-2006, 17:17

Not to be a spoilsport, but didn't we have a 4- or 5-page thread about just this subject recently?

**Mithrandir** · 12-15-2006, 17:34

Yes, and should it end up the same way I'll be as lenient as a brick...again.

**doc_bean** · 12-15-2006, 17:36

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Yes, and should it end up the same way I'll be as lenient as a brick...again.

My hero !

**Rodion Romanovich** · 12-15-2006, 17:41

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.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 12-15-2006, 17:44

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?

**Scurvy** · 12-15-2006, 18:57

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.....

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

**Husar** · 12-15-2006, 19:15

Originally Posted by Scurvy

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.....

That feeling is called jealousy.

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.