Heroism is so tightly linked to morality that any discussion of the former would be woefully incomplete without touching upon the latter. The relationship between these two concepts itself is straightforward: the hero is s/he who upholds the side of moral virtue in the face of wrong/unjust/evil forces. (I shall, for the purposes of this post, be accepting this as a true statement without any further need of unpacking. If you disagree with it, comment and let me know.) Any uncertainty in a heroic analysis comes from distinctions within either a discussion of morality, or a discussion of heroism.
Few people are willing to hitch their wagon to a theory of moral objectivity, but most are still comfortable relying on intuition to make concrete judgments of right and wrong. Was the nameless kidnapper in "Victory Lap" wrong to abduct Allison with the intention of performing unsavory actions upon her? I'd venture that most of us would agree yes--and we're all happy to pass this judgment on him without evaluating not only why it is we don't question this judgment, but how we might extend this rationale to create at least a somewhat more systematic approach to moral conclusions. Murder is wrong. Incest is wrong. The average human will accept these statements as factual. My friends will roll their eyes here as I satisfy my self-imposed obligation to bring to the table a discussion of relative morality. I cannot ignore the relativism that is so prevalent in the postmodern thinking we all, to some extent, take for granted. Were one to adopt nihilism and reject morality entirely, the idea of a hero becomes very different--if it does not become entirely obsolete. Should one opt for a less extreme position as a moral relativist, it would follow that one's notion of heroism is as subjective as one's sense of morality.
Is there a heroic fact of the matter? Does heroism allow room for subjectivity? Campbell seemed to think so--disregarding the ultimate end of an individual's journey or deeds in favor of the hero's motivations and internal monologue. Here, we run a little further into the grey area of heroism. My first response to Campbell's remark was to think of specific situations that contradict his assertion. And so, picture a Nazi prison guard. Generally, we find devotion to a cause to be a commendable quality in an individual, and as far as heroic behaviors go, sacrificing one's personal interests for the betterment of the cause and its ideals is not unheard of. But can we generalize? Can we include vigilantes, Nazis, crusaders, jihadis... in our definition of a hero? In their own minds, they may be. They might even undergo the same mental and emotional trials a "true" hero would. But we shrink away from bestowing upon them this label. Why? Is it because, perhaps in spite of our natural tendency for skepticism, that we really do think there are moral truths? That, because the vigilante or the crusader or the Nazi is violating or has violated these objective moral standards, they are simply not able to be labeled a hero?
Of course, when we see a case of true heroism, we do not hesitate to identify it. A hero elevates morality over social convention, and potentially even the law itself. (And so we cannot, for instance, equate morality with a legal system or code. The people who hid Jews during the holocaust were very much in violation of their country's laws, but we can agree they are heroes.) A hero pursues the good at all costs. Similarly, true evil is easily identifiable. There are villains whose actions are so contrary to our moral sensibilities--that they deserve the label "villain" they leave no room for doubt.
But what of the grey areas? What of vigilantism, what of insanity, what of the relationship between action and intention? In an attempt to better illustrate some of these questions, I have devised here a schematic of four characteristics, which may be combined as follows:
Culpable-Right: This category houses the true heroes. These individuals aware that their actions' are right actions (and so are culpable). Additionally, the actions must, in fact, be objectively right.
Non-culpable-Right: I call this category the "accidental hero" category or perhaps, in some instances, the "fake hero" category. (Already this is inaccurate, as no one in this category is, in fact, a hero, and the whole point of this discussion is to prove, or at least to convince you, that there is an objective standard of heroism. Excuse the faulty naming--it is an attempt at uniformity.) These individuals may perform acts that seem heroic, but lack the requisite intention. One oddly specific case-in-point: A man (let's call him Cal) walked to his friend's house with a gun, intending to kill his friend (who we shall refer to as Sal). Cal does not know this, but Sal had his own gun, and had formed a plan to go on a rampage through the neighborhood, killing many people, including his buddy Cal. As Sal closes his front door behind him, he is shot and killed by Cal. Cal has just saved himself and many others from a brutal end, but is he a hero? No. Why? Because he set out only with the intention of murdering his friend. He intended to carry out an action that was wrong--that it ultimately was the right thing to do doesn't change the fact that he is not culpable for the goodness (read as heroism) in his action. Conclusion: also not heroes.
Non-culpable-Wrong: The villains. They both intend to do wrong/evil, and realize that intention.
What do you think?
Morality definitely plays a huge role in determining heroes. Especially when it comes down to making hard moral decisions. That's what makes people think politicians or people in power are such villains, because they just seem to be out to make more money or gain more power. However sometimes these people are just faced with incredibly hard decisions, and usually what they decide to do, is what seems to be the best decision.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a hero behaving heroically in the service of a cause we find morally objectionable raises some very serious issues, and it is a topic that Campbell addresses briefly in the documentary but doesn't really pursue. War is a good context for exploring this idea: there will always be "war heroes" on both sides of any conflict, and Campbell points out that our disagreement with the larger cause that inspired these people to enlist in the fight is ultimately irrelevant to the heroism of the acts. But as you note, it's pretty hard to summon up that heroic feeling when contemplating a Nazi soldier saving a comrade's life, for example.
ReplyDeleteOr, to take a more loaded example, suicide bombers are routinely hailed as heroic martyrs by those who support their actions, and there is an undeniable logic of self-sacrifice there that makes it hard to fully discount the heroism, repugnant as the means of achieving it may be to us. (But then when someone like Bill Maher raises questions about the comparable "heroism" of firing long-range missiles remotely against civilian targets, or remote drone strikes that kill civilians, he's run off the network for speaking against the patriotic consensus.)
This was a very interesting post, because so much of this class has been based on determining whether or not certain characters are heroic. The shades of grey that come from a lack of moral objectivity or seeing somebody with good intent but bad results and vice versa (I believe that would be Culpable-wrong and Non-Culpable right, respectively?) were an issue in our discussion of the limitations of heroism in the real world, versus in the controllable, often somewhat prejudiced environment of a book, TV show, etc. But I do appreciate your acknowledgement that there are certain actions that can be objectively called "wrong", because I think the whole "there are no universal morals" thing can be taken too far.
ReplyDelete