What is a Hero? (And what isn't?)

[filippy]

This started on another Thread, but I feel it deserves deeper discussion.
What is a Hero? or rather, "What are the more important traits a Hero should (or shouldn't) have in order to be called such?"
Post your thoughts and Example of "Questionable Heros"(Like Yagami Light from Death Note) and why are (or aren't) they "Heroes"(PLEASE USE SPOILER TAGS)

[ingrey]

I said quite a bit in the other thread, but I'll add something which I think is relevant. When I think about what it means to be a hero, one of the important elements of heroism that comes to mind is that the person, if he is a hero, (1) pursues noble ends, and pursues them intentionally, for the right reasons. I will provide a scenario to illuminate this aspect of heroism: let us suppose that Alexander is a person that loves more than anything else raping young girls, murdering happy people, and torturing the poor. At every chance he gets, he tries to do one of those three activities. However, it just so happens that a certain god, let us call him Irony, decides that he is going to thwart Alexander's will, and instead of him accomplishing his wicked deeds, through various tricks on the part of Irony, Alexander ends up doing great and noble things, bringing peace to the world and plenty to those in need. Yet, Alexander never intended to do any of these great things. And For this reason, he is not a hero. A hero must be motivated in the right way, and pursue his noble ends intentionally.

While (1) seems to be a necessary requirement, I'd like to discuss another one, that might be more controversial. Is it a necessary requirement for someone to be a hero that they accomplish at least some of the noble activities they set out to accomplish, if they set out to accomplish them for the right reasons? Consider the following scenario: Alexander is plugged into a matrix like simulation, with only computers to interact with. In this virtual realm he saves babies from drowning, stops wars, cures plagues, brings food to the poor and justice to everyone. However, he's not really doing any of these things, he only believes that he is. In actuality, he's never done a single good act in his entire life, he's only had many intentions to perform good acts, but circumstances were such that he never actually got to perform one. Shall we consider him a hero, then?

If circumstances had been different, if the world had been such that he wasn't in a computer simulation, he might have done many great things. My intuitions aren't very clear on this. On the one hand, I want to say, no, he's not a hero, he didn't actually do anything heroic, he only believed he was doing heroic deeds. On the other hand, I'm a little uneasy with the idea of heroism depending not just on the kind of person someone is, but on how the world happens to be. It seems kind of arbitrary that one person be a hero because he got lucky and the world happened to be such that he wasn't in a computer simulation. So, the question then is if (2) being a hero is solely dependent on what goes on in a person's mind or if some external circumstances beyond someone's motivations, personality etc. is required.

Let me throw in another claim, that (3) it's necessary for someone to be a hero that not only do they believe are pursuing noble ends, and believe they are pursuing them for the right reasons, but it must also be true that the person is pursuing noble ends, and pursuing them for the right reasons. So, this requirement disbars people from being heroes who believe they're doing something noble, but are not; it disbars people who are doing something noble, believe they're doing it for the right reasons, but aren't doing it for the right reasons. finally, people who believe they're pursuing a noble end, and believe they're pursuing it for the right reasons, and it's false that their end is noble and that they have good reasons for pursuing it. For example, Hitler might have believed it was a noble end to kill millions of innocent people, and he might have believed he had good reasons for it, but he's certainly not a hero. Why? Well, it isn't true that his end is noble, and it isn't true that he had any good reasons for pursuing that end.

[Xennon]

To me a hero has many meanings, and many point of views. I don't think there should be a single meaning. To some it means having noble beliefs and actions, to others it means to inspire.

My definition of a hero would be someone who follows through with there beliefs and actions, takes responsibility for them, inspires others, and causes overall good. Now, this term could be applied to many people and thinking about who it can be applied too, can be controversial.

Once again, someone who may be a hero to millions, can be a villain to millions of others, I can best compare it to 'evil'. Someone can be evil to some, but good to others, it all depends on the point of view.

[filippy]

Originally Posted by ingrey

I said quite a bit in the other thread, but I'll add something which I think is relevant. When I think about what it means to be a hero, one of the important elements of heroism that comes to mind is that the person, if he is a hero, (1) pursues noble ends, and pursues them intentionally, for the right reasons. I will provide a scenario to illuminate this aspect of heroism: let us suppose that Alexander is a person that loves more than anything else raping young girls, murdering happy people, and torturing the poor. At every chance he gets, he tries to do one of those three activities. However, it just so happens that a certain god, let us call him Irony, decides that he is going to thwart Alexander's will, and instead of him accomplishing his wicked deeds, through various tricks on the part of Irony, Alexander ends up doing great and noble things, bringing peace to the world and plenty to those in need. Yet, Alexander never intended to do any of these great things. And For this reason, he is not a hero. A hero must be motivated in the right way, and pursue his noble ends intentionally.

While (1) seems to be a necessary requirement, I'd like to discuss another one, that might be more controversial. Is it a necessary requirement for someone to be a hero that they accomplish at least some of the noble activities they set out to accomplish, if they set out to accomplish them for the right reasons? Consider the following scenario: Alexander is plugged into a matrix like simulation, with only computers to interact with. In this virtual realm he saves babies from drowning, stops wars, cures plagues, brings food to the poor and justice to everyone. However, he's not really doing any of these things, he only believes that he is. In actuality, he's never done a single good act in his entire life, he's only had many intentions to perform good acts, but circumstances were such that he never actually got to perform one. Shall we consider him a hero, then?

If circumstances had been different, if the world had been such that he wasn't in a computer simulation, he might have done many great things. My intuitions aren't very clear on this. On the one hand, I want to say, no, he's not a hero, he didn't actually do anything heroic, he only believed he was doing heroic deeds. On the other hand, I'm a little uneasy with the idea of heroism depending not just on the kind of person someone is, but on how the world happens to be. It seems kind of arbitrary that one person be a hero because he got lucky and the world happened to be such that he wasn't in a computer simulation. So, the question then is if (2) being a hero is solely dependent on what goes on in a person's mind or if some external circumstances beyond someone's motivations, personality etc. is required.

Let me throw in another claim, that (3) it's necessary for someone to be a hero that not only do they believe are pursuing noble ends, and believe they are pursuing them for the right reasons, but it must also be true that the person is pursuing noble ends, and pursuing them for the right reasons. So, this requirement disbars people from being heroes who believe they're doing something noble, but are not; it disbars people who are doing something noble, believe they're doing it for the right reasons, but aren't doing it for the right reasons. finally, people who believe they're pursuing a noble end, and believe they're pursuing it for the right reasons, and it's false that their end is noble and that they have good reasons for pursuing it. For example, Hitler might have believed it was a noble end to kill millions of innocent people, and he might have believed he had good reasons for it, but he's certainly not a hero. Why? Well, it isn't true that his end is noble, and it isn't true that he had any good reasons for pursuing that end.

Magnificent post, but what if the "Hero" in question does believe in the "noble end" (A.k.a. has a good nature), but just doesn't want to pursue it for any reason (Selfish or not), and is instead forced to by a greater force, is he a Hero?.
For example, What if the hero discovers his best friend is the Uber-Villian and that he must kill him to save the earth, and refuses to, but later on he finds there's no other choice for him than to kill his best friend, and so he does? Is he a Hero, or isn't he?

[Jironie]

I have a question about this,Lets say something happens to the protagonist.lets say he/she dies,but is given a second chance as long as he/she does something that will save the world or a large group of people.Now originally this person is doing this for his/her second chance,but as the story continues learns and becomes a person who would willingly sacrifice her/himself to save the world/group.

Would he/she be a hero because of the change or would he/she still be considered just a protagonist because originally she/he was only out for him/herself?

[Azaireal]

Hero is most often used (today) as a common frame of reference. The hero is the easily identified protagonist. This is in opposition to the antagonist, who is not the 'hero'.

Modern day book sales indicate a certain level of moral ambiguity is desired for main-characters. Thus we have the making of a protagonist-antagonist axis. Sort of like a balancing act between actions which are good and actions which are bad. The hero will always tilt towards the good, the villain always tilts towards the bad.

A good example of this axis is found in Death Note.

Kira tilts towards bad, L tilts towards the good. They both will kill people or have people killed to get what they want, but L is not risking lives carelessly as Kira dispenses with those who get in his way. Kira may be right in executing all the violent/criminals in the world, but he cannot justify executing law enforcers who are simply doing their jobs as keepers of the peace. L's morality is sketchy at best because his sole aim is to ensure the 'status-quo' of peace and prosperity in the world by thwarting vile demons, such as Kira. L is willing to get innocent people in the line of fire, but he never pulls the trigger. He's guilty of causing their deaths, but on the vain hope his foe (however against his intellect this seems) is the one that decides to let them live. Sacrifices must be made, and L is willing to pick them.

I guess the term 'anti-hero' is used to describe this moral decaying of protagonists in popular culture (which is weird, because anti means in opposition to, which would make these characters villains by self definition, but they are not because they are heroes who are just bad people).

Normal, traditional, or even stereotypical protagonists often receive a lot of bad publicity because they are not acting in a 'sound' or acceptable way. Emiya Shiro often receives such bad publicity,

because his inane and often poorly conceived efforts to live his life as a morally 'good' person should are frowned upon by others. A good person must throw himself between a loved one and danger, despite all person odds because it is hypocritical to allow them to remain in such a state (if you love them). His actions in Fate/Stay Night are often so poorly received because people do not want to see him portray a protagonist, but the average teen age boy (apprentice mageling) who knows his place in the world. The reception of his actions as pure stupidity or vain, are reflective of the acceptance of anti-heroism in television (and real life). People expect him to understand that his is incapable of doing the things he is incapable of doing, and behave accordingly. Shiro will not live up to this expectation, and will vainly attempt to overcome the obstacles which prevent him from being the protagonist he wishes to be (he dreams, or once dreamed, of being a champion of justice). He fails, and we see him fail, at this overcoming of obstacles, which is why we hate him. His failure is unacceptable (even though success would have been unimaginable or even detrimental to the series as a whole) so we mock him in his failed attempts to be the 'hero'.

. Society is developing a certain intolerance for 'heroic' behavior.

I guess it boils down to an acceptance of 'realism' (no one is really good) and a certain hostility towards 'existentialism' (good is not possible).

Pessimistic, eh?

[senile_seinen]

Just a technical note: The term 'Hero' refers to a character who is bigger than life, probably more perfect than humanly possible. He's honest, forthright, disciplined, etc. If he steps off the heroic path for some reason, he pays a heavy price and usually has to atone/quest to get right with the powers that grant him his heroic status. Or he dies. See Le Morte D'Arthur or Othello, the Moor of Venice for two good examples of the hero failing to keep up his end.

Heroes exist as examples of how humans are supposed to behave, like many religious figures do. Most societies that had an oral tradition developed heroic tales to help explain their beliefs and values.

Superman is probably the closest thing to an iconic traditional hero in Western fiction these days. Probably my favorite example is Buckaroo Banzai.

Anti-heroes (heroes with personality flaws, if you will) have been all the rage for the last hundred years or so. I think this is partly because as a society we're very pragmatic about the degree of heroism that is really possible, and, because (to continue the comics metaphor), Wolverine is a more interesting person than Superman is.

We don't expect stories to offer us rules to live by, as our ancestors did. We expect them to entertain us. And characters we can relate to are more entertaining than those who are impossibly perfect.

And yes, I agree, 'anti-hero' is not a very descriptive term, but we're all stuck with it now.

[ingrey]

Originally Posted by Azaireal

Hero is most often used (today) as a common frame of reference. The hero is the easily identified protagonist. This is in opposition to the antagonist, who is not the 'hero'.

Modern day book sales indicate a certain level of moral ambiguity is desired for main-characters. Thus we have the making of a protagonist-antagonist axis. Sort of like a balancing act between actions which are good and actions which are bad. The hero will always tilt towards the good, the villain always tilts towards the bad.

A good example of this axis is found in Death Note.

Kira tilts towards bad, L tilts towards the good. They both will kill people or have people killed to get what they want, but L is not risking lives carelessly as Kira dispenses with those who get in his way. Kira may be right in executing all the violent/criminals in the world, but he cannot justify executing law enforcers who are simply doing their jobs as keepers of the peace. L's morality is sketchy at best because his sole aim is to ensure the 'status-quo' of peace and prosperity in the world by thwarting vile demons, such as Kira. L is willing to get innocent people in the line of fire, but he never pulls the trigger. He's guilty of causing their deaths, but on the vain hope his foe (however against his intellect this seems) is the one that decides to let them live. Sacrifices must be made, and L is willing to pick them.

I guess the term 'anti-hero' is used to describe this moral decaying of protagonists in popular culture (which is weird, because anti means in opposition to, which would make these characters villains by self definition, but they are not because they are heroes who are just bad people).

Normal, traditional, or even stereotypical protagonists often receive a lot of bad publicity because they are not acting in a 'sound' or acceptable way. Emiya Shiro often receives such bad publicity,

because his inane and often poorly conceived efforts to live his life as a morally 'good' person should are frowned upon by others. A good person must throw himself between a loved one and danger, despite all person odds because it is hypocritical to allow them to remain in such a state (if you love them). His actions in Fate/Stay Night are often so poorly received because people do not want to see him portray a protagonist, but the average teen age boy (apprentice mageling) who knows his place in the world. The reception of his actions as pure stupidity or vain, are reflective of the acceptance of anti-heroism in television (and real life). People expect him to understand that his is incapable of doing the things he is incapable of doing, and behave accordingly. Shiro will not live up to this expectation, and will vainly attempt to overcome the obstacles which prevent him from being the protagonist he wishes to be (he dreams, or once dreamed, of being a champion of justice). He fails, and we see him fail, at this overcoming of obstacles, which is why we hate him. His failure is unacceptable (even though success would have been unimaginable or even detrimental to the series as a whole) so we mock him in his failed attempts to be the 'hero'.

. Society is developing a certain intolerance for 'heroic' behavior.

I guess it boils down to an acceptance of 'realism' (no one is really good) and a certain hostility towards 'existentialism' (good is not possible).

Pessimistic, eh?

One of the reasons why natural languages can be a pain is the fact that terms are often used to pick out more than one concept. I was discussing a certain concept which the term 'hero' is used to pick out; this concept is one which many people think would apply to people like Jesus, Gandhi and figures of that stature. While hero as protagonist is another concept, it's not really the one I'm interested in. But for the most part what you've said seems plausible or true to me. However, Light came across as a lot more villainous than your post suggests to me.

The very casual manner in which he considers the fact that me may have to dispose of some of his family if they learn certain things suggests to me that he's a sociopath. There's a lot more evidence to support that conclusion as well

I'm inclined to a different opinion on the subject of society developing an intolerance for 'heroic' behavior. There is a certain amount of intolerance for stupidity, ineptitude, poor reasoning etc. There are a lot of characters who have good intentions but are kind of pathetic at carrying out those intentions, and these protagonists are often looked down upon. But people still love it when the protagonist does something praiseworthy, and does it for the right reasons. Sure, maybe there is a trend in literature toward morally ambiguous protagonists, and they're certainly interesting. But people still love characters who do good deeds.