What makes a hero in your mind?

[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.

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.

Then you mean pleasure basically. And you can't avoid a meta-physical explanation. Meta-physics is a the basic thing you hold reality to be. Naturalistic materialism for example IS a metaphysical account of the world. It holds that all that reality is is the world as studied by the sciences

I'm of the mind set that that isn't all that is. I've been fairly convinced of several of the arguments postulating the Platonic or pythagorean idea of ideal forms.

Looking at quantum mechanics is probably one of the strongest examples I can think of. At the smallest level of reality as studied by the sciences, things like fundamental particles are represented entirely by mathematical formulas. It's almost as if they're nothing but those maths. It wouldn't be a much stretch to assume that maybe the complex physical world is just a complex set of equations interacting to form what we perceive as physical reality

Stretching that idea further can get you to where Plato thought and include things such as the "Form of the good" as understood in the same you can think of a mathematical equation

An ideal form or idea.

Anyway I think we may be getting off topic. We can PM if you want to talk more.

 

[Scarim Coral]

To me that would be someone who commint a dangerous act of bravery like getting a baby out of the sea (this was on the news months ago) but this person did it out of selflessly and not out of fame or glory.

 

[Ikasury]

someone who sacrifices themselves without thought for the betterment of others or the world, someone who is humble that does not demand reward or respect, they get it because it is earned, someone who does not flaunt what they've done, even if it saved the world, someone who knows the risks, knows the hardships, knows just how 'bad' things can and will be, knows the hard choices and takes them because it is the right thing to do...

someone who will be the villain or outcast because it will save the world...

 

[Shock and Awe]

Someone who makes personal sacrifice for the good of others. The bigger the sacrifice and benefit the bigger the hero. You give your best coat to a cold homeless man? Yay, minor heroic act. Run into a burning building to save a baby? Major Heroic act. You get the idea.

 

[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.

Uh, where did I state that killing someone is per definition morally questionable?

Sorry I was just assuming. Killing is the only thing that comes to mind given that it will benefit someone and put you at risk while being morally questionable, to many people.

 

[MiskWisk]

I suppose mine would be someone who acts selflessly without regard for harm or reward that could come from said action. It also has to gel with my current moral alignment as well, otherwise I will be unable to view them in such a favourable light.

 

[Realitycrash]

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.

Uh, where did I state that killing someone is per definition morally questionable?

Sorry I was just assuming. Killing is the only thing that comes to mind given that it will benefit someone and put you at risk while being morally questionable, to many people.

No, I do not see killing as wrong per definition. Heck, sometimes, even murder is warranted, though such situations are absurdly rare and mostly theoretical.

 

[Zhadramekel]

It doesn't mean being able to do special things that anyone else can, it means that you do what you can to help other people, sometimes even if it's detrimental to yourself. One of the contestants on Great British Menu said something similar, even if he was a bit pompous about it.

 

[Miyenne]

A hero is someone who is true to themselves. Who makes the hard choices that others avoid making. The choice the hero makes may not be for the greater good, but if they're protecting what and who they believe in they're a hero.

Can you tell I just finished Last of Us?

 

[Little Woodsman]

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

Pretty much the same as this, though the phrasing I was going to use was "Someone who through conscious choice works to help others, and sacrifices/loses something in doing so."

 

[TeaCeremony]

"On the battlefield, every man is a hero". I feel anyone willing to die for their convictions and actively carries out actions to carry them through is a hero

 

[Realitycrash]

Ethical Nihilism is a joke, and isn't a serious contender for any moral system. Meta-ethical Nihilism is a whole thing differently.

Can you expand on this a bit? I'm wondering if my understanding of Moral Nihilism is lacking.

To be (very) brief; Ethical Nihilism claims that 'Whaa, there is no right or wrong so nothing matters so I can do whatever I want'. Think the tiresome Nietzsche-cliché wannabe (who is also misrepresenting Nietzche). Ethics doesn't exist because since there is no absolute right or wrong, then there is no right or wrong, period.

Meta-Ethical Nihilism says that there is no Metaphysical facts that make something 'right' or 'wrong'. There does not exist any 'rightness' in nature, nothing we can track or find. This does not mean that nothing is right or wrong, just that nothing is 'right' or 'wrong' per necessity. What makes a Right and what makes a Wrong is dependent on humans. Murder is wrong because we consider murder to be wrong. If we did not, it would not be wrong. There is no 'wrongness' inherit in murder. And there is no 'rightness' inherit in Justice.

 

[Isalan]

What makes a hero?

BKB, Mask of Madness, Dagon, Daedalus.

Ethereal Blade if your feeling sassy.

OT: People who do heroic stuff? And, of course, what passes for heroic will vary from culture to culture, person to person. So I'm gonna say Gabe Newell, for he heroically offers me cheap games on a regular basis.

 

[uchytjes]

someone that does what is right without need for recompense. Either that or someone that does stuff that I like.

 

[HardkorSB]

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?

A true hero would have to be someone who benefits other people without compensation and without hurting anyone.
Warriors cannot be heroes, no matter how many people they save and help. They still have to fight the "enemy", hurting them in the process. Heroes don't go to war, even if war seems inevitable.

A hero is someone who is true to themselves. Who makes the hard choices that others avoid making. The choice the hero makes may not be for the greater good, but if they're protecting what and who they believe in they're a hero.

When you think about it, those words apply to Hitler as well.
He was true to himself, no doubt about that. He made choices others avoided. He was protecting his nation, which for the most part considered him a hero.

 

[Thaluikhain]

He was protecting his nation, which for the most part considered him a hero.

Er, what was he protecting it from, and how? A war of his own making, or groups that weren't a threat to it outside his and propaganda?

 

[HardkorSB]

He was protecting his nation, which for the most part considered him a hero.

Er, what was he protecting it from, and how? A war of his own making, or groups that weren't a threat to it outside his and propaganda?

He saw see himself as a hero. He thought that Germany was treated poorly by other nations. Before WWII, he started to conquer areas which once belonged to Germany. He was getting back what was stolen from them. Many Germans at that time (and some still today) thought he was right and that he was heroically opposing the oppressors (which was easier to do since Germany went through a financial crisis after WWI).
Also, he wasn't the only one responsible for the war. There was Himmel, Goebels and many others just as responsible. Hitler was a face for the public, a person who would make the nation think they're doing the right thing (the general public and even most of the soldiers didn't know anything about concentration camps), who would give the soldiers courage to go to war with practically the whole world. A "hero", basically.

 

[Gatx]

This sums it up for me.

Brings a tear to my eye every time.