There is absolutely no need for another hero in today’s society, which is overloaded with people who are idolized as heroes. The way in which society canonizes people as heroes is by the position of power they hold, the accolades they have received, or the fame they accumulate throughout their respective careers. These are all however, personal or individualistic achievements, held only by a small percentage of society. If everyday people live their lives based on the achievements of such a small percentage of the population then people are nearly always going to fall short of their life goals because these “heroes” set a false standard for how to live a life. Trying to live a life based on others individual accomplishments and living up to their standard is not a virtuous way of life for everyone. The way in which we should determine if someone is living a virtuous life is by looking at society collectively and taking the positive aspects of what “works”.
The main reason why we do not need another hero is because we do not really know who these people are. For the most part the people who we determine as heroes, we have never talked or even met before. Yet we decide that since they are successful in what they do and are getting a tremendous amount of public attention, that they are the heroes we should try to live like. The only way we know about these heroes is through the media. We only know a very small percentage of their life and who they really are. This is a problem because when issues from their private/ unknown life leak out into the public, and we see them committing wrong doings we then see who they really are as a person, leading us to stop calling them heroes. There are numerous modern examples which depict these heroic figures, who falls from supremacy because a private issue which go against their public image leak out causing people to question their title as hero.
Along with the problem of not knowing who these heroes truly are, we also not need another hero is because today people are not trying to just achieve goals in order to be virtuous, rather they are idealizing the people who have already achieved their goals. People should try and become virtuous by living a life they desire, not trying to mimic a life of another person.
Some of the questions which we would pose to the supporters of a hero are if you do say we need another hero, who should it be? And what criteria does it take in order to become a hero? Also wouldn’t society benefit from basing what a virtuous person consist of on a larger percentage of the population rather then this small percentage which makes up the heroes, or so called virtuous people of today?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
First off, I agree with Team A on this one so I'm opposed to what Team B has to say here. However, they do ask valid questions that do require valid answers. Now Team B brings up the point that people tend to view celebrities as heros and when something bad about them becomes public that persona is crushed. However, this is not the hero's fault, for a hero does not ask to be a hero. A hero's status is only determined as in the eyes of the beholder. Therefore, the problem does not lie in the "hero", but in those who perceive him/she to be so. This is a reflection of a society that tends to only want to see the good in the world, and gloss over the bad. We need to realize that no one person if perfect, but that they do have admirable qualities that would make them a good role model. This does not mean we can glance over their negative qualities. In fact their negative qualities should be seen as a positive in a way, since it grounds them in reality with all humanity, as being flawed. It also gives us a counter-example of how not to lead our lives. Furthermore, a hero is a very personal thing, and why society as a whole needs heros, they should not be because society tells you they are good, but because you believe they are good. Also a hero does not determine the morals of society, but the society determines the moral criteria for a hero. Will power, believing in yourself, and all these other things that people such as Lance Armstrong embody werent suddenly considered good by him first and then society adapted them. In fact, it was the other way around. Ideas are good. The idea of democracy is good, but what good are ideas, or virtues if there are no examples of them. Society or the individual determines the hero, not the other way around. We do base what it is to be virtuous on a large percentage of the population, however, it helps to be able to see these virtues embodied in one place.
I agree with Sean and I think that some of his points can be taken even further. First I would like to say that I think there are a distinct difference between someone who is famous (a celebrity) and a hero. A hero is someone who is idealized for his or her outstanding achievements and noble qualities. A person can be famous without having noble qualities. They may even have fans that want to be like them, but this does not make them a hero. A hero is someone who can not only serve as a role model for his or her generation, but also retain his or her relevance for generations to come. For example, (the people team A mention) Martin Luther King Jr., and Gandhi. Thus I think that Sean makes a good point: it is not the celebrity’s fault when they fail, because they let down society. Instead it is the public’s fault for not recognizing the difference between a celebrity and a hero. For example, Tiger Woods is a celebrity who, when the scandal was released of his infidelity, was perceived to have let a lot of people down. However Tiger Woods is a perfect example of a person who is a celebrity and not a hero.
I agree with both what Sean said namely, that it’s important to note that heroes are not self-proclaimed; no one ever comes out and says, “I’m a hero.” As a society we promote certain people as heroes and because of that, sometimes we are left disappointed by their actions but that doesn’t necessarily discount their virtues. Even using the Tiger Woods example, he is a notoriously private man who just played golf and happened to win a lot. Somehow, as a society, we took a leap of faith and decided that because he dominated on the golf course, that made him a great person as well and a role model, which he never said he was. I disagree with Abigail that Tiger Woods is not a hero, as far as golf is concerned, Woods is still the same “hero” he always was. He did for golf what Jackie Robinson did for baseball and you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who would argue that Jackie Robinson is not a hero. When you build people up to be something that they themselves don’t claim to be, you leave yourself open to disappointment. The fact that someone may be a hero in the sense of serving as an example doesn’t mean that they serve as examples in all facets of their life. No one would claim that the Dalai Llama is not a hero just because he isn’t good at golf; for the same reason, we shouldn’t discount other people’s status as heroes because of their shortcomings in other parts of their lives.
I agree with both what Sean said namely, that it’s important to note that heroes are not self-proclaimed; no one ever comes out and says, “I’m a hero.” As a society we promote certain people as heroes and because of that, sometimes we are left disappointed by their actions but that doesn’t necessarily discount their virtues. Even using the Tiger Woods example, he is a notoriously private man who just played golf and happened to win a lot. Somehow, as a society, we took a leap of faith and decided that because he dominated on the golf course, that made him a great person as well and a role model, which he never said he was. I disagree with Abigail that Tiger Woods is not a hero, as far as golf is concerned, Woods is still the same “hero” he always was. He did for golf what Jackie Robinson did for baseball and you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who would argue that Jackie Robinson is not a hero. When you build people up to be something that they themselves don’t claim to be, you leave yourself open to disappointment. The fact that someone may be a hero in the sense of serving as an example doesn’t mean that they serve as examples in all facets of their life. No one would claim that the Dalai Llama is not a hero just because he isn’t good at golf; for the same reason, we shouldn’t discount other people’s status as heroes because of their shortcomings in other parts of their lives.
I see the point that all of you guys are trying to make, but I have to disagree especially with Anthony when he says if anyone can argue that Jackie Robinson is not a hero. I do not think he is a hero because all he did was go out and play baseball, granted he was the first African-American player to play in the MLB, he only went out everyday and played baseball. He was an extremely gifted baseball player who did break the color barrier in baseball, but the only reason he is considered to many as a hero is because of his story the media portrays. Without the media's constant coverage on the great things he did in his career, he would have just been considered the first African-American player to play baseball. If you were to consider him a hero then you should consider Al Gore a hero for inventing the internet, which has changed the way in which we run society today, and we do not consider Al Gore a hero in our society.
Post a Comment