Altruism, required for heroics?

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

In the US media we often hear the term "Hero" applied to people that find themselves in a situation where they do their job as expected, Fire fighters, police, doctors and the like. When interviewed they dismiss the heroic nature and simple claim to be doing their job.

There are others that go beyond "doing their job" and put themselves in harms way fully knowing that harm can or will come to them. The story of the Fire Fighter at Chernobel (sp?) that drove up to the fire and continued to fight it single handed while vomiting and eventually passing out from the radiation.

So the operators now working the issues at the reactors in Japan...

Are they heroes or just doing their job?

Ben

[Cat]

Heroes! Whether they are "just doing their job" or not.

[dannyt]

There are others that go beyond "doing their job" and put themselves in harms way fully knowing that harm can or will come to them.

Yes I think in situations as you describe above it is a very valid term, your example way a very good one.

I do however feel the term is generally over used by the media thought, but that is true for many words.

Re. your subtitle can engineers be hero's ...well yes but their opportunity in a work environment are limited compared to many others.

[Daklu]

Re. your subtitle can engineers be hero's ...well yes but their opportunity in a work environment are limited compared to many others.

I've had jobs where I've almost died from boredom... does that count?

[crelf]

There are others that go beyond "doing their job" and put themselves in harms way fully knowing that harm can or will come to them.

I don't know. I guess it depends on what their perception of their job is. For example, if a firefighter is called to a catastrophe (think WTC) and thinks "this is way beyond what I signed up for, and I'm in no way comfortable doing this", are they, in contrast, cowards?

[dannyt]

I've had jobs where I've almost died from boredom... does that count?

+1 lol

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

I am still curious to hear more about what you feel makes a hero a hero and how or if an engineer or scientist can achieve that status. But on a somewhat related idea...

I have often mentioned to my buddies

"Anyone can casue a problem, but for a disaster, there as to be an engineer."

Ben

[dannyt]

I am still curious to hear more about what you feel makes a hero a hero and how or if an engineer or scientist can achieve that status. But on a somewhat related idea...

I have often mentioned to my buddies

"Anyone can casue a problem, but for a disaster, there as to be an engineer."

Ben

Doing something to help others when you are aware that in doing so you put yourself at a significant risk. thought I do suspect in a lot of case the spure on the moment action is instinctive, but I still think that counts after all it could equally be instinctive to run away. I suspect from an evolutionary point of view a "hero gene" is not a good thing.

The people in the nuclear plant control rooms are they operators or engineers ? they could achieve that status.

Re your quote made me think.

If a doctor or GP make one mistake in doing so it can and does cost lives but as engineers we normally have the luxury of safe guards between our mistakes and the consequences of them, peer review, system tests and many more things.

Just came across this,

[crelf]

Just came across this:

"Brave Man drives burning Petrol Tanker away from Neighbourhood" or "Crazy Man drives burning Petrol Tanker spewing burning gas through Neighbourhood"?

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

"Brave Man drives burning Petrol Tanker away from Neighbourhood" or "Crazy Man drives burning Petrol Tanker spewing burning gas through Neighbourhood"?

Is heroism determined by

the results of taking that actions

or

the intent when deciding to take the action

or

something else?

Ben

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

A related observation about popular media, heros and engineers

In disaster movies like Mad Max and many others, the protaganist often has to rescue someone from the bad guys. The people they have to rescue are often the heroin or the mad scientist (engineer). So rather than being the hero they are saved by the hero.

Ben

[Phillip Brooks]

Homer Simpson Need Not Apply

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/18Friedlander.html?_r=1

[Daklu]

Is heroism determined by

the results of taking that actions

or

the intent when deciding to take the action

or

something else?

Results absolutely matter when applying the "hero" label. Suppose while driving the burning tanker away from the gas station it exploded next a school bus full of children? It's doubtful that person would be considered a hero, regardless of his good intentions. At the very least the results of the action must be no worse than the expected results had the action not been taken.

Intent/motive is crucial when evaluating a person's character, but I don't think they play a significant role in determining heroism.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Results absolutely matter when applying the "hero" label. Suppose while driving the burning tanker away from the gas station it exploded next a school bus full of children? It's doubtful that person would be considered a hero, regardless of his good intentions. At the very least the results of the action must be no worse than the expected results had the action not been taken.

Intent/motive is crucial when evaluating a person's character, but I don't think they play a significant role in determining heroism.

Before I take that away as a fixed point... Should i understand that heroism is not a part of a "person's character"?

Ben

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

"Brave Man drives burning Petrol Tanker away from Neighbourhood" or "Crazy Man drives burning Petrol Tanker spewing burning gas through Neighbourhood"?

A full tank of gas will not easily explode, although you sure can end up roasted in a big fire. It's the almost empty tank of gas that will explode in a very nasty way!

[Daklu]

Before I take that away as a fixed point... Should i understand that heroism is not a part of a "person's character"?

Good question...

<Thinking out loud>

I don't think so. There are character traits that may make one more prone to perform heroic actions--empathy, selflessness, desire for recognition, etc.--but that doesn't necessarily make them a hero. Society doesn't ordain someone a hero until a heroic action is performed and recognized. In other words, a hero is defined as someone who performed a heroic action. No more, no less. This is a very action-centric view of heroism, but there are many labels people earn only as a result of their actions. A person may have murderous thoughts and desires, but they are not a murderer until they actually kill someone. Psychotic? Probably. Unstable? Possibly. Dangerous? Almost certainly. Murderer? No.

I guess the converse question is, is it possible for an heroic action to have been performed by a non-hero?

[SteveChandler]

I think that heroism is all about motivation. Extreme acts of bravery against all odds don't count as heroism if it servs only to save ones own ass - that is simply the survival instinct. If one knowingly places himself in danger to save others from danger with no promise or expectation of reward that person is a hero. A hero acts for the greater good. Dang socialists!

[jcarmody]

[...] A hero acts for the greater good. Dang socialists!

My comment isn't intended to address the beginning of your post, but the last two sentences made me think of Atlas Shrugged so I extrapolated my thought and merged it with your comment to get this: a man who runs into a burning building to save his children is selfish; the one who does it to save strangers is a hero.

[Cat]

So what about this?

Eight firefighters injured, 2 seriously, fighting a house fire. All 5 people inside the house got out safely. My understanding is the firefighters were injured battling the blaze, not rescuing the people.

Is this heroism?

If my house were on fire, and all the people (which includes my cats, BTW) were safely out, I would rather the house burn down to the ground than firefighters get seriously injured trying to put the fire out. People's lives are more important than my property.

[jcarmody]

[...] People's lives are more important than my property.

Amen. Leave the property concerns to the insurance companies.

[Phillip Brooks]

I think that heroism is all about motivation. Extreme acts of bravery against all odds don't count as heroism if it servs only to save ones own ass - that is simply the survival instinct. If one knowingly places himself in danger to save others from danger with no promise or expectation of reward that person is a hero. A hero acts for the greater good. Dang socialists!

Moral Maxims and Reflections

Now I have something new to read! My mother is from the Charente region, and I visited Château de La Rochefoucauld when I was young...

• Complete courage and absolute cowardice are extremes that very few men fall into. The vast middle space contains all the intermediate kinds and degrees of courage; and these differ as much from one another as men’s faces or their humors do.
  • François de La Rochefoucauld, Moral Maxims and Reflections, no. 215 (1665-1678)

• Perfect courage is to do without witnesses what one would be capable of doing with the world looking on.
  • François de La Rochefoucauld, Moral Maxims and Reflections, no. 216

[Daklu]

A hero acts for the greater good. Dang socialists!

I would say a heroic action results in an immediate benefit to others. I don't think that's the same as benefitting the "greater good." Consider...

Heroic Herb disregards his own safety and runs into a burning building to save the life of Tina the Teacher. Clearly this is a heroic action. The next day Tina the Teacher snaps from the PTSD, turns into Tina the Terrorist, and blows up the elementary school where she teaches, killing herself along with hundreds of children. One can argue Herb's action no longer benefitted the "greater good." Does that make his actions the previous day any less heroic?

a man who runs into a burning building to save his children is selfish; the one who does it to save strangers is a hero.

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but I don't see why the saving one's own children would be considered selfish while saving a stranger is not. Obviously we are more emotionally tied to our children than to strangers, and we will certainly feel much worse about standing around while our children burn than we would about standing around while a stranger burns. In both cases the act of saving the person removes the guilt of not having acted, so are not both actions selfish?

<Philosophical ramblings>

For what it's worth, several years ago I adopted a hedonistic viewpoint of human behavior. Not hedonistic as is commonly used--excessively pursuing physical pleasure--but hedonistic in the sense that all decisions are made based on maximizing our pleasure or minimizing our pain. ("Pleasure" and "pain" as I'm using them refer to more than just physical or emotional reactions. They're words I use to cover the larger concepts of "that which we seek" and "that which we avoid.") When faced with a decision, we always choose the option that gives us the maximum immediate return on the pleasure/pain scale.* From this point of view all actions are essentially selfish and there is no such thing as pure altruism. I'm okay with that, especially since (IMO) hedonism does a better job of explaining human behavior than other models.

(*The phrase, "maximum immediate return on the pleasure/pain scale" requires a bit of explanation. Humans have a remarkable ability to anticipate the future and so we commonly make immediate sacrifices in exchange for long term benefits, such as putting a percentage of every paycheck in an emergency savings account. Since we could get more immediate pleasure by spending the money instead of putting it in savings, isn't that a counter-example of "maximizing our immediate return on the pleasure/pain scale?" No, and here's why. Anticipating the future allows us to plan and prepare for it, but it also subjects us to worrying about it if we are not preparing for it. We have reactions now based on future (or possible future) events. The comfort of preparing or being prepared gives us immediate pleasure. The worry from being unprepared gives us immediate pain.)

Hedonism explains why, given the exact same set of circumstances, different people will make different decisions. Herb the Hero rushes into the burning building while Carl the Coward stands by watching. Why is that? For Herb, the immediate pain of standing by doing nothing was greater than the immediate pain he felt from the risks of entering the building. What caused his pain? Maybe thinking about people suffering inside. Maybe supressing his sense of duty to help. Maybe the memory of losing a loved one to a fire. Regardless, he chose the less painful action. Carl had more immediate pain from the idea of entering the building than from doing nothing, so he did nothing. What caused his pain? Maybe he has a fire phobia. Maybe he was severely burned previously and remembers the physical pain from that. Maybe he's afraid of leaving his family without a husband and father. Yet he also chose the less painful action. Is Herb more admirable than Carl?

What makes people behave differently while the building burns is that we each apply different factors (and different weights to the factors) to the pleasure/pain equation. It also explains why some Saturday mornings I go ride my mountain bike while other Saturday mornings I watch Charles in Charge reruns with bowl of Cocoa Pebbles. My pleasure/pain equation has changed. If you want to influence a person's behavior, figure out the factors and weights they use in their own pleasure/pain equation and address those.

(Hedonism also explains why I'm spending time posting this instead of practicing for my CLA exam tomorrow. I get a lot of pleasure out of discussing philosophy, so much so that it overcomes the massive pain of writing. I am a sick, sick, man. )

</Philosophical ramblings>

So what about this? Is this heroism?

Can't say, the article didn't give many details. What would have happened if the firefighters hadn't acted as they did? Could the fire have spread to other houses or burned down the neighborhood? Preventing several families from losing their homes due to a spreading fire is hero-worthy in my book. Exposing oneself to dangerous situations due to inadequate training (they were volunteers) or inept command is not.

[Cat]

Can't say, the article didn't give many details. What would have happened if the firefighters hadn't acted as they did? Could the fire have spread to other houses or burned down the neighborhood? Preventing several families from losing their homes due to a spreading fire is hero-worthy in my book. Exposing oneself to dangerous situations due to inadequate training (they were volunteers) or inept command is not.

Yeah, I looked for something more detailed but all reports had the same lack of specifics.

$2,000,000 mansion surrounded by lots and lots of grass.

So are you saying that hero-ness increases in proportion to the numbers of homes (just property, no lives) that were saved? (I'm trying to help you avoid the pain of practicing for the CLA )

[Daklu]

So are you saying that hero-ness increases in proportion to the numbers of homes (just property, no lives) that were saved?

Good question. I guess I would say I believe the general perception of hero-ness increases in proportion to the assumed impact of the heroic action. More houses saved means more people affected by the action, hence greater hero-ness. Personally I'm haven't convinced myself that's a valid way of looking at it, but I think the general perception probably works that way.

Here's something else I just thought about... what about the passengers on the 9/11 flight that crashed in PA? By forcing a confrontation they probably prevented the hijackers from crashing into another building and are widely considered heros. Yet self-preservation was undoubtedly at least part of their motivation for doing it--doing nothing meant certain death. Does their desire for self-preservation make their actions not heroic?

(I'm trying to help you avoid the pain of practicing for the CLA )

Nice to have someone else looking out for me.

[jcarmody]

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but I don't see why the saving one's own children would be considered selfish while saving a stranger is not. Obviously we are more emotionally tied to our children than to strangers, and we will certainly feel much worse about standing around while our children burn than we would about standing around while a stranger burns. In both cases the act of saving the person removes the guilt of not having acted, so are not both actions selfish?

From that point of view, yes, they are both selfish acts. I don't know if removing the anticipated future guilt is enough of a motivation, though, or even a consideration. I don't believe I would feel guilty for not acting on behalf of strangers; I have my own family (read: selfish interests) to look out for. I would certainly act if the risk was low enough (but that either makes me practical or cowardly, certainly not heroic).

One premise in Atlas Shrugged is that selfishness, although damned by society, is necessary for achievement.