Oilrig Passengers Who Died in Helicopter Crash: Heroes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mgb_phys
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the characterization of oil rig workers who died in a helicopter crash as "heroes." Participants debate the appropriateness of labeling these individuals as such, given that their deaths occurred while performing a job, rather than in a selfless act of sacrifice for others. Some argue that heroism should be reserved for those who risk their lives to save others, while others suggest that the dangerous nature of the workers' jobs qualifies them for the title of hero within their industry. The conversation touches on broader definitions of heroism, including the idea that anyone who undertakes difficult work for their families could be considered a hero. However, many express skepticism about equating job-related deaths with heroism, emphasizing that true heroism involves selfless acts that directly save lives. The dialogue also critiques the potential politicization of the term "hero," suggesting that it is often used loosely in times of tragedy. Overall, the discussion reflects a complex interplay of definitions and societal values surrounding the concept of heroism.
  • #31
rootX said:
It doesn't include people like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi.

I think heroes are people whose contributions cannot be compensated with the available resources, and who are unique/irreplaceable for what they do. If we use this definition, then firefighters work don't cost as much as people like Nelson Mandela's work.
I don't see them as a definition of "hero". What they did was not "heroic" (in my definition).

What they did might be for the good of others, it might have entailed great personal "sacrifice" of personal conveniences, but it was not "heroic", not in my interpretation. A heroic instance would be deciding to be put to death instead of telling where a political fugitive was hidden. Fasting, negotiating, even willing to go to jail, is not on the same level, although it is to be admired, IMO.

It really comes down to your own personal definition, doesn't it? Doing a great deed that entails personal sacrifice, I could see how some would say it's heroic. It's just not the first thing that comes to my mind.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
"Hero" is a word that is tossed around too lightly these days. I know a hero. A friend of mine was a Navy Doctor in Viet Nam. When the fighting was hot around Khe Sanh, Eddie Feldman would insist on grabbing an M-16 and hitching a ride on one of the medivac helicopters, because he felt that "first aid" might not be enough to keep wounded Marines alive long enough to be evacuated to his field hospital. During one such firefight, he noticed one wounded Marine being given a wide berth by the other troops. The guy had a live mortar round embedded in his abdomen. Eddie removed that mortar round with his bare hands at the risk of his own life, and had the round moved away for detonation so he could treat the fallen soldier. The Marine lived, thanks to Eddie's bravery and subsequent treatment at the field hospital. Eddie was awarded a Silver Star, which was faint praise, indeed. Where's his Medal of Honor? That Marine would have died on the battlefield without my friend's help. Nobody wanted to touch him, much less load him onto a helicopter with other wounded to be evacuated to the hospital - too many lives at risk with a live mortar round embedded in him.

When I hear somebody being called a hero because they got killed just doing their job (no matter how essential or mundane) it makes me think of Eddie, and people like him who knowingly and willingly put their lives on the line to save others. IMO, those are essential elements of heroism.
 
  • #33
DaveC426913 said:
A much better example.
That was a question, not a statement. I suppose, then that you would answer yes?
My point is that they're claiming that their industry sees them as heroes within their industry. Those who depend on them don't have to answer to anyone as to who they consider heroic.
I know, Dave. The statement carries no real consequences to the person who says it, but that doesn't automatically mean it is a proper usage of the word. You seem to be missing the point of the thread - the point is to judge whether that usage is correct or not.
So, if uh ... manhole spelunkers are heroes, that's up to the uh ... steam industry to decide for themselves.
Really? Wow, does the same apply to other words? Should we ask convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal if he is a "murderer" or not and release or execute him based on his response?

I'm pedantic logical and therefore it annoys me when people misuse words. Sometimes a word can be misused purposely as the literary device of exaggeration, and if I've told you once I've told you a thousand times, that's fine...but it isn't fine in all cases. This particular word has a special importance to me because I was in the military and more than a lot of other words, it annoys me when people throw it around so haphazardly. To put a finer point on it, it is an insult to Ed Freemandied and Richard Phillips to call these people heroes.
 
  • #34
rootX said:
It doesn't include people like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi.
Perhaps it does: did they risk their lives for a cause that helped save the lives of others? Certainly, it isn't as direct and immediate a circumstance as jumping on a grenade, but to me the criteria is still met.
 
  • #35
turbo-1 said:
Eddie was awarded a Silver Star, which was faint praise, indeed. Where's his Medal of Honor?
Though a medal of honor is viewed publicly as being somehow different, it is a faint line indeed between a sliver star and a medal of honor. The primary difference is that a medal of honor usually involves actual injury instead of just the risk of injury and/or the length of time exposed to the risk. Also, while he certainly assumed a high risk while he was doing it, perhaps in the postmortem, it was decided the risk wasn't as high as he thought it was.
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
Though a medal of honor is viewed publicly as being somehow different, it is a faint line indeed between a sliver star and a medal of honor. The primary difference is that a medal of honor usually involves actual injury instead of just the risk of injury and/or the length of time exposed to the risk. Also, while he certainly assumed a high risk while he was doing it, perhaps in the postmortem, it was decided the risk wasn't as high as he thought it was.
Perhaps the MOH has evolved to something that it was not, previously. Did you know that Tom Custer was awarded the MOH twice? Both times for penetrating enemy lines and capturing a confederate battle flag.

Brave, perhaps foolhardy, but certainly not a selfless act in protection of another's life.
 
  • #37
russ_watters said:
Perhaps it does: did they risk their lives for a cause that helped save the lives of others? Certainly, it isn't as direct and immediate a circumstance as jumping on a grenade, but to me the criteria is still met.

Yes, I agree.
I don't think they risked their lives and neither attempted to save anyone directly. I think there's little difference between trying to save someone's life and fighting for what's right. In second case, they might be saving thousands lives indirectly or at least improving lives. I would prefer living a short good life than a long life in undesirable conditions. So, I would value a person more who makes the society better than someone who saves my life. If more valuable work is more heroic then saving lives directly is not as heroic as making the society better. But, I am not sure about if changing society is more valuable or saving few people's lives.
 
  • #38
  • #39
turbo-1 said:
Perhaps the MOH has evolved to something that it was not, previously. Did you know that Tom Custer was awarded the MOH twice? Both times for penetrating enemy lines and capturing a confederate battle flag.

Brave, perhaps foolhardy, but certainly not a selfless act in protection of another's life.
I didn't know that, no, but medals are often politicized and as a result the number given out and the reasons they are given out vary in time. I doubt highly that such an act would be recognized with a MOH today - nor do I think it should.
 
  • #40
rootX said:
I guess this is also a hero (using saving lives and acting bravely def)
Probably, but a dog has the benefit of not understanding the risk. The human brain is what stops humans from doing heroic things.
 
  • #41
:biggrin:
russ_watters said:
Really? Wow, does the same apply to other words? Should we ask convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal if he is a "murderer" or not and release or execute him based on his response?

russ_watters said:
I'm pedantic, logical
and a teensy bit derisive?:biggrin:
 
  • #42
Little bit, when warranted, yeah. The statement was rediculous.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Please don't think my name is written in a bad paraphrase (just in case my mind is being activated).
 
  • #44
russ_watters said:
That was a question, not a statement.
It was a statement. Your first one, not so good. This one, better.
 
  • #45
russ_watters said:
Little bit, when warranted, yeah. The statement was rediculous.
As long as you're opening the door to "ridicule"...

You are trying to compare the words "murderer" and "heroic".

"Murderer" is a definable condition, like "Hindu" or "literate".
"Heroic" is much less definable as a condition, like "happy" or "shy".

The ambiguity in this situation is not in the definition of the word, but in the fact that there is some latitude in its applicability.