Meeting on heroism

We had our meeting on heroism.  There was a good turnout as it was also a dinner meeting.

From the discussion, we can see three types of heroes,

1. Those that respond to an emergency to save someone or rectify a situation.  It is done intuitively without much thought.

2.  Those that have the courage to stand up to a bully, to go against tremendous mental pressure or prevailing opinion.

3.  Those found in mythology such as the Hercules, Achilles etc.  These are figures to hold out as examples for humans to admire and to define what bravery is.

Fundamentally, heroes are people that we come to admire because of acts of self sacrifice or risk taking to save others or to preserve an ideal for the group.  Because of this admiration, heroes are held out at role models for others to serve the common good of the group.

The attraction to heroes is also used by states and institutions to promote their own agendas of patriotism and loyalty to the institution, to raise the bar for the rest of the participants to aim for.

Some at the meeting said sacrifice is an integral part of being a hero. 

However, on further contemplation, I think that sacrifice is so common in heroism because sacrifices are generally graphic and easily seen.  To die, get seriously injured, or suffer wide spread condemnation is there for all to see.  Even risking these possibilities is generally very evident.  Sacrifice illustrates the supreme difficulty and challenge of the endeavor.

If someone saves a child from drowning in a river without any danger to himself because he did it with ingenuity instead of bravado, I think most of us will still consider this person a hero.

We also agreed at the meeting that someone cannot become a hero just by self declaration.  It is a status bestowed by others.  Therefore, admirers are required for heroism.

Chris came up with the great thought experiment for the example recently of a small plane making an emergency landing on the highway and some of the people close by went to pull the occupants out before the plane caught fire.  We all agree that these people are heroes because they took great risk to save others.

However, Chris' thought experiment added a twist to the ending - as the occupants were pulled from the plane, someone declared the whole thing as a staged practical joke on the rescuers.  So there never was anyone in real danger but the rescuers did not know that.  In the context of the practical joke, the rescuers became the laughing stalk rather than heroes but the situation is essentially similar.

The missing ingredient is the admirer.

Some thought that heroes personify altruism and putting the welfare of others ahead of the self.  A quality we so need in our society.

Others thought that there are limits to pushing altruism as an ideal. Putting other people's welfare ahead of our own may eventually over emphasize the needy as a necessary condition.  We should always look after our own affairs and those close and dear to us before helping others.

As to the question of whether there is any difference between a heroic act versus a reckless act,  we have to say that it is perhaps the same for the first type of hero that just jump in without much thought. The outcome may be the judge; hero if it turned out, and reckless if it failed.

I think generally heroes represent one element of leadership which is courage.  There are other qualities such as foresight, judgment, empathy, and intelligence but these are usually not as evident as courage and bravery so we carve out a different status for this. 

It is telling that states will honor their heroes with medals and other forms of recognition but not always put these same heroes into strategic planning.  Everyone has their place.....