All Articles Heroism
| Heroism |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Eve Woolven |
| Tuesday, 24 March 2009 03:58 |
|
E Woolven “I’m no hero. I just did the Christian thing and helped someone.” This comment was made by one of the bushfire victims from Victoria’s recent tragedy, given in response to a claim that the speaker was a hero for assisting a group of people in a car pile-up trying to escape the fires that were fast destroying their home and their town. The man, who was being interviewed by a journalist, was quite clear about his response. It was obvious that he was not being falsely modest either; he honestly did not think he was hero, but simply one person helping another who was in need, even though doing so meant placing himself in danger. What, then, is heroism? And what virtues or specific actions and circumstances make someone a hero? Heroism could be understood as “remarkable physical or moral courage”, and therefore a hero is someone who acts remarkably bravely or shows great courage, strength of character, or another admirable quality. The man who helped the people in the situation described above, could be called a hero then, as his actions required bravery, courage and strength of character, regardless of the exact circumstances; for undoubtedly, in such a potentially fatal situation, these qualities are needed, and are therefore called into action. But did he show “remarkable physical or moral courage”? I won’t attempt to answer this question, as I believe I would need more details of the man’s actions and the exact circumstances. My point here is not to question whether this man, as well as many other people who acted bravely in the bushfires, are entitled to be called ‘heroes’ or not, but to question the motives and implications of using such terms. The journalist who interviewed the man, as well as perhaps the majority of Australians, would consider this man’s actions as heroic (extraordinary or remarkable deeds), that by definition should set him apart from others, who may not be capable of the same courage. Is this true though? Certainly, what the man did was brave, but was it remarkable? I do not think so. All human beings are capable of remarkable acts of bravery and courage when we are placed in certain situations. There is a spirit of virtue within us; call it altruism, which can be triggered in times of danger to reach extra-ordinary heights, in order to help others, even if it means putting our own lives in danger. But more than altruism is an innate understanding of the preciousness of human life, and the need to protect it. Human beings are not usually egocentric when it comes to the preservation of life; naturally, we all desire to protect ourselves from harm and death, but generally we are not so selfish that we value our own lives over another’s. Are heroic acts, then, popularly termed as such, simply good deeds, of which we are all capable, or rarely seen extra-ordinary acts of bravery? They can be both, but quite often they are simply good deeds. There seems to be a generally accepted notion, that whenever a person acts unselfishly, doing something good for another person, that this is unusual, and should be applauded for its remarkableness. Is humanity really so selfish that any consideration we show for another, which should be a natural inclination, is deemed heroic? Surely not. I think we need to recognise goodness and selflessness in the things we do for others without applauding them as heroic and remarkable acts, as well as to praise those instances of extraordinary human courage and strength which are truly heroic.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 1145 Comments (1)Subscribe to this comment's feedWrite comment |
| Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 00:01 |
