Defining Heroism

Posted by Joshua White on 06.28.2006

Four almost five years now people have been referring to those those who died on 9/11 are heroes. Not all people who die are heroes. In this column I attempt to give a better definition of what true heroism is.

Before I start my official column I would like to breathe an online sigh of relief now that the "Flag Desecration" amendment has failed. This was the most ridiculous waste of Congressional time that I've seen since they debated steroids in baseball and violence in video games. The only difference is that this debate could have changed our Constitution. The sad thing was that the bill almost made it out of the Senate. It missed by one vote.

I realize that not everyone agrees with me about this point (but you should). If you disagree with me and think that flag "desecration" should be banned by the Constitution would you mind answering a few questions for me?

1) I understand the flag is symbol of freedom, but how does taking away freedom help preserve freedom (three "freedoms" in one sentence...I'll be writing Bush's speeches any day now)?

2) Here is the proposed amendment: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. If the amendment only grants the power to Congress, but the Congress doesn't decide to do anything with said power, then what is the point of the amendment in the first place?

3) What exactly is desecration? Is leaving it in the rain desecration? Is not folding it properly desecration? If we accidently rip it and dont' sew it back up so that it continues to tear desecration (or would it be involuntary flag desecration)? If we're going to have an amendment how about some precision in the language?

4) If I personally make a flag with my own cloth and string can I now burn it? If not, why not? I bought the material. I put the time into making it. It should be mine. Why can't I do with my own property what I would like?

5) Finally, would it be wrong to desecrate a photo of the flag?

I realize that some of these questions seem a little silly, but I think that they are all legitimate issues that could be raised against the potential amendment. Not only is there that whole sticky "freedom of speech" issue, I think that all these question bring up enough problems to keep that amendment from passing in the future.

I just wanted to get that off my chest. On to my real column.


Unlike other writers I have been reticent to "pimp" other columns. This is not because I don't like the other writers (I do), or read the other columns (I do), but it is usually because I don't have a way to incorporate their columns into mine smoothly. Further, I believe that while you readers have your favorite column (which should be this one) you read them all. And if that is true, then I don't need to pimp. Well, today is different. And today, my fine readers, pimp I shall.

In the past month one of our fabulous 411 writers has written two columns dealing with the issues of language and how it is misused. He first wrote a column on how it is those he define certain words control the dialogue. I liked this column. And if you haven't seen it, you should go take a look. This was a little over a month ago, but that wasn't enough for Mr. Church. NO! There is more to be said. So, he wrote another column that included a nice, little section on the "War on Terrorism" and how it isn't really possible to have a war on a military tactic (like we can't have a war on "snipers"). If you haven't done so, I highly suggest that you read it.

Why am I telling you all of this? Well, I wanted to give you my motivation for writing this week's column. I have been thinking about the following topic for a long time. And with Mr. Church as my catalyst and my new found forum to express my view (to my millions of followers). So here I go.

Before I get into the defense of my main point, let me just state it bluntly: those who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and many of the rescuers are not heroes. Now, let me explain.

Since 9/11 I have routinely heard the victims of the attacks referred to as "heroes." Here is just one example. (I tried to find a quote of someone in any branch of government referring to those who died as heroes, but as I'm not the ridiculously good research that Jason Easley is, I failed.) Often those who were located in the towers are lumped together with the firefighters, police and other emergency workers when being called heroic. Yet, my question is this: what did these people do that was heroic? With all due respect all they did was die. That is not heroism that is simple tragedy.

Maybe I'm being too hasty. Perhaps in order for me to legitimately say all of this I should attempt a definition of "hero" or "heroic." So here is my first very rough attempt at a definition:

A hero is one that performs an action that involves a higher than normal level of courage to protect or save someone or something.

It's clear from my definition that those who died in the attacks on 9/11 were not heroes. This holds true for many (I'd say most but I don't have any real proof or numbers) of the emergency workers. Many of them, while acting bravely did not do anything more than a normal day of work for them would require. Many of the EMTs and police waited outside the buildings. They didn't go inside or risk themselves in any substantive way. Let me remind you, once again, that I'm not saying that these people didn't do a good job on this day. I'm not saying that they weren't needed, or useful in any number of ways. I'm just claiming that many (perhaps most) of them were not "heroic."

But I do think that there were some heroics on September 11th. I suggest that the members of Flight 93 that resisted the terrorists could be potentially considered heroes. They actively fought off armed men in an attempt to stop them from hijacking their plane. These people exhibited above normal levels of courage to protect others. These are heroes.

And yet, there are dissenters. My friend and leader Jason Easley (whom I've mentioned twice in this column) thinks that those on that flight were not acting heroically. He says, "As far as the Flight 93 people go, I don't think they were heroes, because they were not trying to control the plane to save others. They were just trying to save their own lives. That is not heroic, that is survival."

If Jason is correct that these passengers were only acting out of survival than I agree that they weren't acting as heroes. Sure, they were displaying tons of courage to attack men wielding razors. But they were doing so to save their own lives. This isn't heroism, this is fight or flight. However, if these people acted because they wanted to save the other people, or just wanted to stop this particular assault from happening, then this is heroism.

There seems to be a need for a slight modification for my definition of "hero." We need to somehow incorporate the idea that a true hero is one who acts on behalf of someone or thing other than himself. For as Jason said, if he is acting only for himself it seems to be just survival and not heroism.

But I think that there is one last change that should be made as well. I think that this change will become evident if I give two short examples. In the first example, a man is carjacked. Before the thief can get away, another man opens the car door, pulls the guy out and holds him down until the police come. In the second example, a man is being carjacked and before the guy can get away with the car a police officer pulls the carjacker out of the car and holds him until backup arrives.

It is my contention that in the former example, the man who pulled the carjacker out of the car is acting heroically while in the latter the policeman is not. I realize it sounds bizarre to say that the same action can be both heroic and not at the same time. I maintain the truth of this claim because I think that it is isn't just the action being done that makes a hero, but also the person doing the action. Heroism is found in situations where one acts more courageously than his norm. The cop has been in this situation before. He's done this in the past. He's at least been trained in what to do or not do (I will assume for the sake of this argument that this is true). His job is to do something like this on a daily basis. This is why it is not acting heroically for him to stop this carjacker. And it is for the same reason that many more of the emergency workers who arrived to the carnage that was created on 9/11 were not acting heroically. They were acting within the descriptions of their jobs. They were doing what they have done multiple times before.

Here is my second attempt:

A hero is one that performs an action that involves a higher than normal level of courage than is expected for them to protect or save something or someone other than themselves.

That is not to say that emergency workers cannot act heroically. However, for these type of workers to act heroically is for them to go above and beyond their normal job duties and actions. For example, if a firefighter runs without hesitation into a house on fire, that is normal everyday behavior for them. However, if there is a fire that is of an unusual intensity and it would be asking too much for even a trained firefighter to rush in and yet he does, this then would be heroic.

As I wind this column down I would like have Jason give his explanation for why it is we like to refer to the 9/11 victims as heroes. He claims that " the word hero has been politicized and we have lost the definition of what makes a true hero." I think that he is right again. If we call everyone one "hero" then the real aren't (and can't be) valued as much. Further, they are lost in the shuffle of all the heroes. While we ought to remember the victims of 9/11, we should do so truthfully. They were innocent victims that were killed. They did nothing heroic. By realizing this we end up honoring the real heroes.

So there you have it. That is my rough attempt at defining a very broad concept. If you think that I'm wrong, feel free to email me and let me know.