What makes a hero in your mind?

[Party^2]

What is it that calls up the image of a "hero" in your mind? What is a hero to you in the first place? Is your vision someone who commits great acts to benefit Humanity? Is a hero someone who reaches out to those in need? Is it in the action, the attitude, the beliefs or something else entirely?

 

[Realitycrash]

Someone who acts for the benefit of others and with a great personal risk, though not if said act is morally questionable.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I go for the ones who perform selfless acts of, well, heroism, without any regard for oneself and 100% to the greater good.
Kind of generic, but hey.
That said, I find the strength of a hero to be in how much they can do without compromising their principles.
You know that scene in the first Spider-Man where the Green Goblin drops Mary Jane and a gondola of kids and tells Spidey to "choose" but Spider-Man saves them both?
That's kind of what I'm talking about.
The more a hero can, to put it bluntly, heroically multi-task, when they push themselves as hard as they can go without giving even an inch to the prospect of "letting one slide," the stronger they are in my eyes.

 

[Euryalus]

Someone who acts for the benefit of others and with a great personal risk, though not if said act is morally questionable.

Isn't that part of the question? What does that really mean?

OT: It's hard to really put into words (read as I'm lazy) but my philosophy is fairly in line with Aristotle's virtue ethics and Aquinas' thought.

A hero would generally be someone who espouses the virtue of Courage in the very technical meaning of it. As in making the right choice in spite of fear, or, and here's the kicker, BECAUSE of it.

Not a big fan of utilitarianism and especially not nihilism.

 

[Realitycrash]

Someone who acts for the benefit of others and with a great personal risk, though not if said act is morally questionable.

Isn't that part of the question? What does that really mean?

OT: No idea, but my philosophy is fairly in line with Aristotle's virtue ethics and Aquinas'.

Not a big fan of utilitarianism and especially not nihilism.

It means that just because someone thinks he acts for the benefits of others, and at great personal risk, it does not necessarily make him a hero. Like a soldier, for instance. Whether or not the consequences actually merit his hero-status is the question. Many so called 'war-heroes' are not heroes in my mind. War is not necessarily heroic.

Aristotles Virtue Ethics are..Misguided, as it's impossible to define what a 'virtue' is without going into endless regress or being arbitrary. At least according to Aristotles definitions of it.

Ethical Nihilism is a joke, and isn't a serious contender for any moral system. Meta-ethical Nihilism is a whole thing differently.
As for Utilitarianism, yes, I do support it. Rule-Utilitarianism, that is, with a gray area for when Act Utilitarianism should be used instead.

All and all, what makes a hero can only be determined in hind-sight and is subjective.

 

[Euryalus]

Someone who acts for the benefit of others and with a great personal risk, though not if said act is morally questionable.

Isn't that part of the question? What does that really mean?

OT: No idea, but my philosophy is fairly in line with Aristotle's virtue ethics and Aquinas'.

Not a big fan of utilitarianism and especially not nihilism.

It means that just because someone thinks he acts for the benefits of others, and at great personal risk, it does not necessarily make him a hero. Like a soldier, for instance. Whether or not the consequences actually merit his hero-status is the question. Many so called 'war-heroes' are not heroes in my mind. War is not necessarily heroic.

Aristotles Virtue Ethics are..Misguided, as it's impossible to define what a 'virtue' is without going into endless regress or being arbitrary. At least according to Aristotles definitions of it.

Ethical Nihilism is a joke, and isn't a serious contender for any moral system. Meta-ethical Nihilism is a whole thing differently.
As for Utilitarianism, yes, I do support it. Rule-Utilitarianism, that is, with a gray area for when Act Utilitarianism should be used instead.

All and all, what makes a hero can only be determined in hind-sight and is subjective.

Aristotle's views do seem to sorely lack a grand meta-physical system for determining virtues, but as he said in his critique, he wasn't really asking what "the good" was, but how to BE good. In that sense its an extremely useful part of the equation.

Virtues in a sense are just habits that pre-dispose you to making "right" choices. The big question being what they are. Someone whose virtuous "knows" but that's no help philosophically.

The real question is how you "determine" virtues. Utilitarianism is complecated as fuck (it's philosophy XD), but focuses its efforts on results. The gross oversimplification (but useful) quip of "The greatest good for the greatest number of people" sums it up basically.

Its sounds good, and maybe it is, but it faces the question again of what is good? Is it pleasure? Happiness? I don't know, it gets back to the intiial question. Assuming though that we answer it semi satisfactorily, you run into the other problem of how do you measure good. If its a numbers game as would seem to be the case then you need a way of adequately measuring without subjectively picking and choosing.

^that's clearly a dumbed down version, but is where some problems I have with it arise. Deontology basically goes the other way and says results don't matter, only action in accordance to a higher "duty" (as meta-physically determined).

I have problems with that as well but they're not important. The reason I mentioned Aquinas, is because his position was that no, actions, results, and virtue do all matter.

 

[Realitycrash]

Someone who acts for the benefit of others and with a great personal risk, though not if said act is morally questionable.

Isn't that part of the question? What does that really mean?

OT: No idea, but my philosophy is fairly in line with Aristotle's virtue ethics and Aquinas'.

Not a big fan of utilitarianism and especially not nihilism.

It means that just because someone thinks he acts for the benefits of others, and at great personal risk, it does not necessarily make him a hero. Like a soldier, for instance. Whether or not the consequences actually merit his hero-status is the question. Many so called 'war-heroes' are not heroes in my mind. War is not necessarily heroic.

Aristotles Virtue Ethics are..Misguided, as it's impossible to define what a 'virtue' is without going into endless regress or being arbitrary. At least according to Aristotles definitions of it.

Ethical Nihilism is a joke, and isn't a serious contender for any moral system. Meta-ethical Nihilism is a whole thing differently.
As for Utilitarianism, yes, I do support it. Rule-Utilitarianism, that is, with a gray area for when Act Utilitarianism should be used instead.

All and all, what makes a hero can only be determined in hind-sight and is subjective.

Aristotle's views do seem to sorely lack a grand meta-physical system for determining virtues, but as he said in his critique, he wasn't really asking what "the good" was, but how to BE good. In that sense its an extremely useful part of the equation.

Virtues in a sense are just habits that pre-dispose you to making "right" choices. The big question being what they are. Someone whose virtuous "knows" but that's no help philosophically.

The real question is how you "determine" virtues. Utilitarianism is complecated as fuck (it's philosophy XD), but focuses its efforts on results. The gross oversimplification (but useful) quip of "The greatest good for the greatest number of people" sums it up basically.

Its sounds good, and maybe it is, but it faces the question again of what is good? Is it pleasure? Happiness? I don't know, it gets back to the intiial question. Assuming though that we answer it semi satisfactorily, you run into the other problem of how do you measure good. If its a numbers game as would seem to be the case then you need a way of adequately measuring without subjectively picking and choosing.

^that's clearly a dumbed down version, but is where some problems I have with it arise. Deontology basically goes the other way and says results don't matter, only action in accordance to a higher "duty" (as meta-physically determined).

I have problems with that as well but they're not important. The reason I mentioned Aquinas, is because his position was that no, actions, results, and virtue do all matter.

Yes, and what *makes* a person good? That he is virtuous. And what is a virtue? Courage, honor, etc. And why? Well..Because apparently its what was favored by the Greeks at the time. Gee, seems a tad arbitrary, don't you think?

As a Utilitarian, I prefer to measure 'good' in 'happiness', and what makes people happy, well, that's each up to them. The more, the better, as long as we follow some basic rules set in place to safe-guard said system from becoming mindlessly short-sighted and lose track on what makes people tick. Rule Utilitarianism prevents some of the more despicable out-comes of mindless Act Utilitarianism.
Then again, I believe it overall impossible to completely follow a Utilitarian code of ethics. To me, it's a mind-set, a goal. Something to keep in mind, something to act towards. No system of ethics is complete, or without its problems. I just find it more malleable and fitting to reality than Deontology, and less obscure then demand that good people be 'virtuous', without at the same time giving a good explanation to what a virtue is and why any other virtue isn't taking its place.

 

[Euryalus]

Yes, and what *makes* a person good? That he is virtuous. And what is a virtue? Courage, honor, etc. And why? Well..Because apparently its what was favored by the Greeks at the time. Gee, seems a tad arbitrary, don't you think?

That's what I said XD

The virtues chosen by Aristotle were seemingly arbitrary and just following conventional wisdom at the time, but the idea of virtues as a set of habits that help to facilitate choosing "correctly" is a good one. Useless on its own, but helpful with a non arbitrary way of choosing virtues.

If the virtues are correctly chosen, then yes, thats what it means to be a good person, because you choose rightly.

For that, you'd need a meta-physical conception of good.

As a Utilitarian, I prefer to measure 'good' in 'happiness', and what makes people happy, well, that's each up to them. The more, the better, as long as we follow some basic rules set in place to safe-guard said system from becoming mindlessly short-sighted and lose track on what makes people tick. Rule Utilitarianism prevents some of the more despicable out-comes of mindless Act Utilitarianism.
Then again, I believe it overall impossible to completely follow a Utilitarian code of ethics. To me, it's a mind-set, a goal. Something to keep in mind, something to act towards. No system of ethics is complete, or without its problems. I just find it more malleable and fitting to reality than Deontology, and less obscure then demand that good people be 'virtuous', without at the same time giving a good explanation to what a virtue is and why any other virtue isn't taking its place.

But that's just it, Utilitarianism has the same problem virtue ethics has in a sense. It needs a framework on which "the greater good" can act. You can say happiness, but what does that mean exactly? It's clear that it is "the end goal of all actions," but what is it? Kant said it was adhering to a sort of meta physically derived duty through action. Aristotle said it was living a life cultivating virtues that allowed you to focus on higher level thoughts like art, philosophy, and science, either by removing distractions (gluttony, lust, pride, etc...) or cultivating intellectual pursuits (contemplation, asking questions, inderstanding the world). The "contemplative life."

Utilitarianism answers it by saying that its an external state of affairs. An ordering of the world in the "right" way. Depending on which philosophy your talking about, that order is different as derived by metaphysics.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I go for the ones who perform selfless acts of, well, heroism, without any regard for oneself and 100% to the greater good.

That raises the question: what constitutes "heroism"?

OP: A hero, I think, is any person who sums up the ideals of a particular culture, and is revered as a model of those ideals, whatever they may be.

 

[Frankster]

Someone who acts in a way that is noble and for the benefit of others without selfish motivations, basically someone that can inspire others to live better lives themselves and act in a better way.
Its worth noting that i dont believe ability is a factor here, if anything people have a bad habit of confusing raw ability or talent with heroism.

So to give some modern examples in my eyes Lance Armstrong is NOT a hero (even if he wasnt a cheating bully id still just consider him a gifted sportsman) and if anything is the classic example of a self serving glory hound.
By contrast despite being "just" an actress, Angelina Jolie is kinda heroic in my eyes for her humanitarian work and being a positive role model overall who has used her position of fame for good causes and i dont get a vibe she does it just so people can fawn over how "good" she is. Also I dont give a damn about most movies she's been in, but again, her ability doesnt factor in my view.

 

[SoranMBane]

A hero is someone who exemplifies some positive ideal and overcomes incredible odds in the pursuit of that ideal. A hero doesn't even necessarily have to save any lives or wield any weapons in order to be heroic; their "battle" can be an entirely social or cultural one, or even an internal one as they struggle to overcome their own personal flaws. Of course, whether or not a particular character's ideals are positive enough to count them as a "hero" in the mind of the viewer will depend on the viewer's own personal philosophy.

 

[Guffe]

I think the "hero scale" can be very wide.

For example I would count anyone who protected my homeland 1940 as a Hero, both homegrown boys and the ones who came from our neighbouring countries to aid us in our need. This sort of heroism is pretty difficult to get today since we're not at war and very few are sent out in peace duties from my country.

I would also consider the ones who do good deeds in their daily lives as heroes, doesn't really matter how big or small the deed, if you aid someone in their needs you're at least someones' hero.

Today of course actors, sports stars etc get a lot of attention through media, and just the sheer amount of work some of them do, both in their respective fields and outside of it (charity work etc) I think you can name a few of these as heroes.

Many have "personal" heroes today due to the type of society we live in, and I think that's a good thing. Even I can be somoeones' hero without knowing it due to something I have done sometime.

 

[Vegosiux]

There's a bit of a constant I see in answers to this question whenever it's asked, the concept of sacrifice and overcoming odds...

...which would logically lead to the conclusion that "heroism" is a very situational thing. Joe who ran into debt to provide for his family due to harsh conditions his family lived in, then fought off the loan sharks and won the day is a hero, is Jack who did not have to deal with all that, but did maybe have to cancel a family vacations and hardly spends any time home because he works two jobs in order to make ends meet a hero as well?

What is "heroism" dependant on, primarily? Character or circumstance?

Until we answer that question, I doubt I can answer the question what heroism "is" properly.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Heroes are a subjective subject. What makes someone a hero in someone's eyes might make them reprehensible in others. Generally most people would agree that a hero would do something extremely selfless, but beyond that it's all over the map.

Technically, I've been referred to as a "hero" by many people since I'm currently active duty in the US military. I HATE that, though. I'm not anything close to a hero. I don't even like people referring to it as "service." I get extremely awkward when the occasional person actually says "thank you for your service" to me. I'm just a guy doing a job. I never joined up out of a sense of duty or serving my country or any of that shit, I had just dropped out of college and needed a decent job in a rough economy. I've certainly never been on the front lines, and I almost certainly never will considering I'm in the Navy. I believe that the military is overall a good organization that does good things, but I'm suddenly a hero just for joining? No, I think not.

And it's not just referring to me that miffs me. I've met plenty of people in my time in the military. Most of them are nice folks. Some of them are total assholes. Few, if any, of them are what I would call a hero.

 

[scarecrow350]

It's simple really
a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

When I think of things like that, OP, I remind myself of Link from The Legend of Zelda.

As T0ad 0f Truth said, it is someone who espouses the virtue of Courage...but for me, it is also someone whom espouses the virtues of Wisdom and Power, as well.

I now defer to the definitions of these three virtues:

For Courage, I use the definition that Wild Arms 1 used - the ability to go beyond yourself and your own desires.

For Power, I use a more traditional definition from the dictionary - the ability to act or produce an effect.

For Wisdom, I also use the dictionary definition - the quality of having experience, knowledge and good judgment.

It is one whom espouses these in balance that I call a "hero". It is the ability to walk the path you choose, having the wisdom to walk truthfully and having the courage to walk that path to its true end, no matter the outcome.

As for what the "truth" is...well, not even I can say for certain, but I can let Lenny Bruce and Margaret from Persona 4 enlighten you:

 

[Glongpre]

Someone who acts for the benefit of others and with a great personal risk, though not if said act is morally questionable.

So the hero can't kill someone. That is so unrealistic. I agree with the first part though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd go with someone who does something for the benefit of others, to the detriment of themselves.

 

[Realitycrash]

Yes, and what *makes* a person good? That he is virtuous. And what is a virtue? Courage, honor, etc. And why? Well..Because apparently its what was favored by the Greeks at the time. Gee, seems a tad arbitrary, don't you think?

That's what I said XD

The virtues chosen by Aristotle were seemingly arbitrary and just following conventional wisdom at the time, but the idea of virtues as a set of habits that help to facilitate choosing "correctly" is a good one. Useless on its own, but helpful with a non arbitrary way of choosing virtues.

If the virtues are correctly chosen, then yes, thats what it means to be a good person, because you choose rightly.

For that, you'd need a meta-physical conception of good.

As a Utilitarian, I prefer to measure 'good' in 'happiness', and what makes people happy, well, that's each up to them. The more, the better, as long as we follow some basic rules set in place to safe-guard said system from becoming mindlessly short-sighted and lose track on what makes people tick. Rule Utilitarianism prevents some of the more despicable out-comes of mindless Act Utilitarianism.
Then again, I believe it overall impossible to completely follow a Utilitarian code of ethics. To me, it's a mind-set, a goal. Something to keep in mind, something to act towards. No system of ethics is complete, or without its problems. I just find it more malleable and fitting to reality than Deontology, and less obscure then demand that good people be 'virtuous', without at the same time giving a good explanation to what a virtue is and why any other virtue isn't taking its place.

But that's just it, Utilitarianism has the same problem virtue ethics has in a sense. It needs a framework on which "the greater good" can act. You can say happiness, but what does that mean exactly? It's clear that it is "the end goal of all actions," but what is it? Kant said it was adhering to a sort of meta physically derived duty through action. Aristotle said it was living a life cultivating virtues that allowed you to focus on higher level thoughts like art, philosophy, and science, either by removing distractions (gluttony, lust, pride, etc...) or cultivating intellectual pursuits (contemplation, asking questions, inderstanding the world). The "contemplative life."

Utilitarianism answers it by saying that its an external state of affairs. An ordering of the world in the "right" way. Depending on which philosophy your talking about, that order is different as derived by metaphysics.

I can measure happiness. It's the firing off neurons in your head. When a person is happy, we can track it. We can see the chemical changes in the brain. That is, for all that I am concerned, happiness. What causes said firings is different from each person. Knowledge, for instance, brings me happiness. Others like adventure, or creativity, etc, and that's equally fine.
There are different sort of neurons firing for different occasions, so perhaps I should rephrase myself. It's not 'Happiness' we are after, but 'pleasurable experiences', and these too can be tracked, although they can also be subjective. Some people like pain, yet we can see that they like it by a brain-scan, so that's fine too. And we can, you know, ask them.
So I'm pretty clear with what I mean. I'd a MetaEthical Naturalist-Reductionist. I have no problem with ignoring any and all metaphysical attempts of explanation.