[ExI] Heroism without self-sacrifice

[Anne Corwin]

ABlainey at aol.com wrote:
 I am at a loss to think of an example of being heroic without any risk. Certainly not within my own context of the word 'Hero.'
Same here, though I guess I see "risk" as being different from "sacrifice".  

I definitely don't think it's possible for someone to be "heroic" (given my understanding of what that means) if they aren't at least willing to take risks in some situations.  A world without risk would be a boring one indeed (even bearing in mind a plausible world in which "death" is not the primary risk), and in a world where risk exists, it seems to be the default assumption that most people will either:

(a) Seek to minimize personal risk (to the point of fear-based inaction even when they know a risky action might lead to tremendous benefit if taken), or:

(b) Take risks, but mainly for the "thrill" of doing so.

Literary (and real) heroes, on the other hand, will take risks, but they're either smarter or more creative about doing so than average, or they risk things in such a way that their deeper, admirable ethical principles are revealed, making them appealing/inspiring as characters.  I would almost wager that the "sacrifice" notion is a red herring here: that is, the hero isn't thinking of him/herself at all (and what they stand to lose) when deciding to act -- rather, s/he is thinking of how to produce the best outcome to the situation at hand.  The fact that they personally might "lose something" if the risk doesn't pan out is sort of irrelevant, or at least it seems that way in many formulations of the heroic archetype I've come across.

- Anne

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080307/4e504947/attachment.html>