Is Heroism Defined by One Act or a Lifetime of Actions?

  • News
  • Thread starter sketchtrack
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the qualifications of being a war hero and how it relates to being a presidential candidate. The writer argues that serving in the armed forces should be a requirement for eligibility to run for president. They also mention the controversy surrounding McCain's war hero status and the importance of assessing a candidate's character and mindset. The conversation also touches on the issue of dodging the draft and how it reflects on a person's character. Overall, being a war hero is just one aspect of a candidate's history and should not be the sole determinant of their qualifications for presidency.
  • #1
sketchtrack
He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think he is considered to be a hero by the men who were POWs along with him.

IMO, he deserves to be honored for his service, but that was over 40 years ago. It has no bearing on the election. And it certainly doesn't give him any unique qualifications to be President.
 
  • #3
sketchtrack said:
He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.
You don't think rejecting early release from a VC POW camp is "some kind of extra brave action"?
 
  • #4
Whoever they happen to be, if they have a military resume with the following on it, I would consider them a war hero...

Achievements as a pilot and prisoner
McCain attended the U.S. Naval Academy from 1954 to 1958, and was commissioned as an ensign in June of that year. He retired in April 1981 with the rank of captain. In that time he received 17 awards and decorations. Besides the Silver Star Medal, McCain also received the Legion of Merit with a combat "V" and one gold star, a Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Star Medal with a combat "V" and two gold stars.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24518450/

To directly answer the question, yes.
 
  • #6
IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

Pure political ascension should not be the only qualifying aspect. Nor should just 'being a war hero'. A true leader must be well versed and weathered on all fronts.
 
  • #8
Yeah, but don't you think the guy that supposedly tortured him saying "Nah, we were pals" carries some weight?
 
  • #9
WarPhalange said:
Yeah, but don't you think the guy that supposedly tortured him saying "Nah, we were pals" carries some weight?

Until McCain says something about it, it is one sided. I've never heard McCain speak publicly about this guy before. I'm just thinking that anyone who's known any of the other people who are running for president in the past, could pull off some tricky bad publicity.

I mean, people are accusing Obama of being a Muslim.
 
  • #10
But I can confirm to you that we never tortured him. We never tortured any prisoners.

This statement can be easily checked just by asking other prisoners.
 
  • #11
B. Elliott said:
IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.
 
  • #12
I know you just joined the service, and now you know why I didn't comment in your thread. Sorry about that.
 
  • #13
sketchtrack said:
He is constantly referred to as a war hero, but is he? Hero, maybe, but war hero?, you could argue that all solders are heros, but not all solders are war heros, doesn't that take away some of the valor of people who jumped on grenades and saved people, or people who took some kind of extra brave action, and saved people.

Yes, he is. McCain's conduct as a POW does provide some insight into how far he will go in pursuit of things he believes in. That's one important trait, but not the only one. It might not even be the most relevant criteria for being President (a really strong commitment to bad ideas isn't a positive).

Fulfilling the obligations the country imposes on you is pretty relevant. In other words, dodging the draft reveals a little bit about a person's character. It could indicate how strong a President's commitment would go if a decision would hurt his chances of reelection.

Neither being a war hero or finding a way out of the draft is a failsafe measure of a President will perform in office decades later. Clinton found a legal way to avoid the worst consequences of a draft and had a reputation for letting poll numbers over influence his decisions. Bush found a legal way to avoid the worst consequences of the draft (and a way out of performing all of his duties), yet has a reputation for being totally committed to his decisions no matter what road his decisions take the country down.

Being a war hero is just one part of a candidate's history to be evaluated along with the other facets of his history.
 
  • #14
If he isn't a war hero than the term has absolutely no meaning.
 
  • #15
Ivan Seeking said:
Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.

You bring up a good point. While having military service should give you a better perspective on it, hopefully meaning you won't start wars unless it's crucial (I hate chickenhawks), the military trains you to kill. It just depends on whether or not you can change your mindset on command.

It's kind of like a boxer knows how to knock someone out, but you don't hear boxers beating the crap out of random people. They know when to do it and when not to. I think for the most part soldiers are the same. You get psychos sometimes, but I think that would go away too if we gave them proper mental care when they need it instead of sending them back home or to the front lines again.
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
I know you just joined the service, and now you know why I didn't comment in your thread. Sorry about that.

No problem at all Ivan. Really. There's a lot of very intelligent people on this forum that I enjoy conversing with, and I don't hold grudges or look too deeply into reasons why someone said something, or didn't. Somewhat the same with an individuals political stance, it's their opinion, and rightfully. If they wish to share it, or not, what does it really matter? All for good conversation.:smile:

Ivan Seeking said:
Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.

Well, to be honest, most people that I personally know that have served in WW2, Vietnam, the Korean War, Desert Storm, ect., didn't turn out to be desensitized cold blooded killers. The people that I personally know that dealt with that cold, hard, realistic slap-in-the-face, it actually made them more sensitized. They understand that the people they are fighting are other people... were brothers, were sisters, were fathers, were grandchildren. It's a reality that not a lot of people can cope with... having to fight for what they believe in let alone fighting for their lives.

The desensitization that you're speaking of is what happens to the small percent that can't deal with the realities of ones life actually being on the line... fighting for your life... for what you believe in and not just sitting back somewhere, cozy as can be, as if whatever war or conflict is only happening in fantasy land. That individual had to have the initiative and motivation to dedicate their time to a cause, and more so than just the dedication aspect, they dedicated their lives.

Too many people today can't grasp what it was was like to live 500, 600, 800 or 1,000 years ago. They've become too accustomed to everything always being there. Everything always being available whenever, wherever they want... Their freedom being simply handed to them. Well, that hasn't always been the case. At one time people had to put their lives on the line to for their freedom. The had to put their lives on the line to search for food for their families. The had to put their lives on the line to keep invaders out and their territory... otherwise they would loose their freedoms.

IMO, not understanding or fully comprehending the above, now that's true desensitization.
 
  • #17
B. Elliott said:
IMO, I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time in on of the armed forces to be eligible for presidency.

Pure political ascension should not be the only qualifying aspect. Nor should just 'being a war hero'. A true leader must be well versed and weathered on all fronts.

Fortunately, you did not write the constitution. The whole point of our great nation is that ANY natural born citizen is eligable to be president. Let's keep it that way.


Me.
ETR3
US Navy 1969-1973
Time in service 4yr Sea duty, 3 yrs 3 months.
 
  • #18
I don't know who to believe about his war records, but even my uncle who is a Vietnam Vet and a strong supporter of McCain admits that most of his medals were undeserved and he wouldn't have gotten them if his father wasn't a four star general.

There is a group called veterans against John McCain, who don't like him very much. They don't like him because of his role in fighting to keep us from going back for POWs after he was released. They say he didn't want them to get released because it would expose him. They say he was nicknamed song bird for talking so quickly to avoid torture, and that he was given extra special treatment while there. I'm not going to just go ahead and believe them, but he did fight relentlessly to keep us from going back for POWs which seems strange when he was one himself.
 
  • #19
It's just that, if every veteran is a war hero, then a war hero isn't anything more than a veteran.
 
  • #20
Integral said:
Fortunately, you did not write the constitution. The whole point of our great nation is that ANY natural born citizen is eligable to be president. Let's keep it that way.Me.
ETR3
US Navy 1969-1973
Time in service 4yr Sea duty, 3 yrs 3 months.

Well, my true thought behind it is that EVERYONE should have to spend time in one branch of service or the other, so by that reasoning, everyone has an equal opportunity to run for president.
 
  • #21
B. Elliott said:
Well, my true thought behind it is that EVERYONE should have to spend time in one branch of service or the other, so by that reasoning, everyone has an equal opportunity to run for president.

I would agree, but for wars like the vietnam war and the Iraq war which I believe to be mostly in favor of private sectors profiting off of it rather than actually defending the country, and crashing our economy at the same time, it isn't the same as world war 2. Also, the current administration barely bothered to get the ones responsible for the attack of 911, and instead rushed into Iraq. If the military had it's priorities strait, then I would be glad to serve, but defending private profit isn't something I'll fight for.
 
  • #22
Not to stray too off topic, but I believe spending time in the military would also be a nice solution to the illegal immigration problem. If the illegals want to become US citizens, they should be allowed to, no problem, but with one stipulation. They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of. After spending X amount of years in the service, they will then be granted citizenship and become a full fledged American.
 
  • #23
Gokul43201 said:
You don't think rejecting early release from a VC POW camp is "some kind of extra brave action"?

Presumably you meant to say "NVA POW camp." The Viet Cong were not in the business of POW camps.
 
  • #24
B. Elliott said:
Not to stray too off topic, but I believe spending time in the military would also be a nice solution to the illegal immigration problem. If the illegals want to become US citizens, they should be allowed to, no problem, but with one stipulation. They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of. After spending X amount of years in the service, they will then be granted citizenship and become a full fledged American.

Actually, there is already a fast-track-to-citizenship program for foreign nationals who enlist in the US military. There's something like 5000-10000 foreign nationals currently serving under this program.
 
  • #25
quadraphonics said:
Presumably you meant to say "NVA POW camp." The Viet Cong were not in the business of POW camps.
I didn't then, but now that you've informed me, I do. My apologies.
 
  • #26
quadraphonics said:
Actually, there is already a fast-track-to-citizenship program for foreign nationals who enlist in the US military. There's something like 5000-10000 foreign nationals currently serving under this program.

I'm aware of this. I just wish more illegals were.
 
  • #27
B. Elliott said:
They must spend time in the military defending the country which they wish to be a part of.
If only there were a convincing argument today that someone's time in the military is more likely than not going towards "defending the country." Moreover, this presumes that any work in a civilian career does not help to defend the country. I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.
 
  • #28
Gokul43201 said:
If only there were a convincing argument today that someone's time in the military is more likely than not going towards "defending the country." Moreover, this presumes that any work in a civilian career does not help to defend the country. I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.

There's already plenty of civilian careers out there that 'defend the country'. It just depends of how tightly and literally you take that statement. By 'defending the country' to me, it also entails serving the country. Public service programs across multiple fronts would do a lot of good. There are many other uses for the military other than simply 'using big guns'.

I wonder how well defended a country would be with a weak socio-economic infrastructure, underdeveloped technical capability and a disenchanted populace.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate?
 
  • #29
I want to change my stance slightly, in that without a military we would be entirely helpless, having a strong military is what keeps us in a position of power and gives us our defense, and the weight shouldn't be carried on the backs of the few, but abuses of power, our security, and using it for bad means is another thing. It is kind of a catch 22. People who sign up for the military are signing up to protect the country, and it isn't their fault that they get used as pawns for private sectors. I only want to defend the intelligent decision it might be in a time like now to become an engineer or a chemist rather than join the military, chances are you might help your country more through those means.
 
  • #30
sketchtrack said:
I want to change my stance slightly, in that without a military we would be entirely helpless, having a strong military is what keeps us in a position of power and gives us our defense, and the weight shouldn't be carried on the backs of the few, but abuses of power, our security, and using it for bad means is another thing. It is kind of a catch 22. People who sign up for the military are signing up to protect the country, and it isn't their fault that they get used as pawns for private sectors. I only want to defend the intelligent decision it might be in a time like now to become an engineer or a chemist rather than join the military, chances are you might help your country more through those means.

But for a great many people, joining the military is a way of gaining the education to become an engineer, or chemist. You don't have to stay in the military your entire life.
 
  • #31
The military doesn't brainwash people and turn them into mindless killers. They want smart people who have a brain and can think and are professionals. What you have to have is the ability to follow orders.

I believe Fallujah was a real first for militaries in that it was the first major battle in which an invading force won the battle while actively taking steps to not harm civilians who were caught in the cross-fire. Before this, this had never really been tried and no one was quite sure if it could be done. Fallujah showed the professionalism of the U.S. military and that a military can invade a country, fight an enemy in it, and at the same time take precautions not to harm innocents. Such professionalism requires soldiers with brainpower, not mindless trigger-pullers.

No one is more anti-war than the truly combat-tested soldiers. Those types are only willing to engage in a war if they absolutely believe it is necessary. And from what I have seen, usually such soldiers are very against killing unless absolutely necessary.

Look at Senator Jim Webb: Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer in the Vietnam War, won the Silver Star AND the Navy Cross and two purple hearts, served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, won an Emmy for his reporting from Beirut in 1983, is an acclaimed author, having written both non-fiction and fiction books, etc...anyway, he is a Democrat, and was (and still is) a staunch critic of the Iraq War. He also has a son who I believe just finished up a tour in Iraq.

This guy has seen a tremendous amount of combat and warfare, and is very much strong on national defense it seems, but he is not for war for the sake of war. If he thinks it un-necessary, he is not in favor it.
 
  • #32
B. Elliott said:
But for a great many people, joining the military is a way of gaining the education to become an engineer, or chemist. You don't have to stay in the military your entire life.

You can do it both ways to, for example the Navy NUPOC program (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program), to train officers to operate the nuclear reactors on those carriers and submarines. They also need nuclear-engineer officers to approve of the designs for new reactors and so forth.
 
  • #33
WheelsRCool said:
You can do it both ways to, for example the Navy NUPOC program (Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate program), to train officers to operate the nuclear reactors on those carriers and submarines. They also need nuclear-engineer officers to approve of the designs for new reactors and so forth.

I know. I just recently joined the Navy.:biggrin:
 
  • #34
Right now they need people who can play video games and program computers, so I bet physics Forum members would be welcomed. I watch on the military channel people were using x box 360 controllers to control remote vehicles which could carry various weaponry like rockets machine guns, fully automatic shot guns. They have cameras on them, so that you are essentially playing a video game on the screen, but it is really happening. It reminds me of the movie "toys".
 
  • #35
WheelsRCool said:
The military doesn't brainwash people and turn them into mindless killers. They want smart people who have a brain and can think and are professionals. What you have to have is the ability to follow orders.

I believe Fallujah was a real first for militaries in that it was the first major battle in which an invading force won the battle while actively taking steps to not harm civilians who were caught in the cross-fire. Before this, this had never really been tried and no one was quite sure if it could be done. Fallujah showed the professionalism of the U.S. military and that a military can invade a country, fight an enemy in it, and at the same time take precautions not to harm innocents. Such professionalism requires soldiers with brainpower, not mindless trigger-pullers.

No one is more anti-war than the truly combat-tested soldiers. Those types are only willing to engage in a war if they absolutely believe it is necessary. And from what I have seen, usually such soldiers are very against killing unless absolutely necessary.

Look at Senator Jim Webb: Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer in the Vietnam War, won the Silver Star AND the Navy Cross and two purple hearts, served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, won an Emmy for his reporting from Beirut in 1983, is an acclaimed author, having written both non-fiction and fiction books, etc...anyway, he is a Democrat, and was (and still is) a staunch critic of the Iraq War. He also has a son who I believe just finished up a tour in Iraq.

This guy has seen a tremendous amount of combat and warfare, and is very much strong on national defense it seems, but he is not for war for the sake of war. If he thinks it un-necessary, he is not in favor it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Too many people are fed propaganda about war and eat it up like a starving dog. Just because war is bad, doesn't mean it is ALWAYS unjust. The military cranking out cold-blooded killers is mass-fed propaganda at it's finest.
 
<h2>1. What is heroism?</h2><p>Heroism is the quality of being brave, selfless, and courageous in the face of danger or adversity. It is often associated with acts of bravery and sacrifice.</p><h2>2. Is heroism defined by one act or a lifetime of actions?</h2><p>This is a debated topic and there is no clear answer. Some people believe that a single act of heroism can define a person as a hero, while others argue that it is a lifetime of selfless actions that truly make someone a hero.</p><h2>3. Can anyone be a hero?</h2><p>Yes, anyone has the potential to be a hero. It is not limited to a specific gender, age, or profession. It is the actions and qualities of an individual that determine their heroism.</p><h2>4. How do cultural and societal norms influence the definition of heroism?</h2><p>Cultural and societal norms can greatly influence the definition of heroism. In some cultures, heroism may be defined by physical strength and bravery, while in others it may be defined by acts of kindness and compassion. Society's expectations and values also play a role in shaping the definition of heroism.</p><h2>5. Can someone be a hero without intending to be one?</h2><p>Yes, someone can be a hero without intending to be one. In some cases, individuals may act selflessly and bravely without seeking recognition or expecting any reward. Their actions may inspire others and make them heroes in the eyes of others.</p>

1. What is heroism?

Heroism is the quality of being brave, selfless, and courageous in the face of danger or adversity. It is often associated with acts of bravery and sacrifice.

2. Is heroism defined by one act or a lifetime of actions?

This is a debated topic and there is no clear answer. Some people believe that a single act of heroism can define a person as a hero, while others argue that it is a lifetime of selfless actions that truly make someone a hero.

3. Can anyone be a hero?

Yes, anyone has the potential to be a hero. It is not limited to a specific gender, age, or profession. It is the actions and qualities of an individual that determine their heroism.

4. How do cultural and societal norms influence the definition of heroism?

Cultural and societal norms can greatly influence the definition of heroism. In some cultures, heroism may be defined by physical strength and bravery, while in others it may be defined by acts of kindness and compassion. Society's expectations and values also play a role in shaping the definition of heroism.

5. Can someone be a hero without intending to be one?

Yes, someone can be a hero without intending to be one. In some cases, individuals may act selflessly and bravely without seeking recognition or expecting any reward. Their actions may inspire others and make them heroes in the eyes of others.

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
809
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
934
Replies
8
Views
4K
Back
Top