If this belongs in GD, so be it. But I think this might be an objective question about the meaning of specific phrases and concepts.
A daring hero and a reckless fool both did a very risky act, hoping to succeed at some goal. They both realized that the odds were low that they’d succeed, and that there was a good chance of injury or even death. But they did it anyway. The one who succeeded is later praised, for his willingness to buck the odds and do the act despite the risk. The one who failed is later laughed at, for not realizing the danger and the low odds of success.
This seems unfair to me. It seems like the main criteria – perhaps the only criteria – for sainthood or damnation is whether or not he was lucky enough to succeed. And whether we praise a person should not depend on his luck.
So here are my objective questions: Are there other criteria that I didn’t think of? Is there any way to evaluate public reaction PRIOR to taking the risk? Can one do the risky action in such a way that he’ll look like a hero even if he fails? Can one do the risky action in such a way that he’ll look like a fool even if he succeeds?
Heroism is more than success through dumb luck: it’s succeeding against the odds, where ordinary men or women would fail or wouldn’t even try. Sometimes fools succeed and are even branded heroes, but a key difference is that heroes calculate the odds and take the risk, while fools don’t.
Success (“If it’s stupid and it works, it isn’t stupid”), whether or not the goal was worth the risk, whether or not there were less risky options available, and whether they were risking others or just themselves are all factors.
Good point. I shouldn’t try to think pre-caffeine. Though I am sorry to hear that you don’t think the man is heroic who disguised himself as a plumber, snuck into the kidnappers’ hideout, and ran out carrying the infant, both of them safe and sound, even though she was just hours away from being sold overseas as a child bride / sex slave. Perhaps he should have set it on fire first?
Nom_de_Plume makes a good point. Reckless behaviour embodies a disregard for the safety and welfare of others, not just themselves. A proper hero isn’t reckless in this manner. Indeed reckless endangerment is a crime.
You can make up some other pairing too. Foolish heroes, heroic fools, daring fools, and indeed reckless heroes.
This really cuts to what I’m trying to ask. You seem to be saying that a fool is one who doesn’t even bother to calculate the odds, and just does it blindly, while the hero calculates the odds, realizes that the odds are against him, and heroically jumps in anyway.
I’m starting to lean towards this. I’m thinking of one particular story of two coworkers at the World Trade Center, one of who was wheelchair-bound, and the other who would not abandon his friend even though the odds were against them getting out of the building alive. He tried to take the wheelchair down the steps, and never made it. Yet he is praised for his dedication, and NOT branded a fool, because he realized what he was getting into.
The problem word here is “tend”. In warfare, I concede that a person may have many opportunities to lean one way or another, and one can draw conclusions based on the overall results. But many people are branded one or the other based on a single incident, and they seem oblivious to the possibility that the fool succeeded by good luck, or that the hero failed by bad luck.
As an example, let’s look at Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who brought US Airways Flight 1549 to a safe water landing in January 2009. I’ll give him all the compliments in the world for his excellence as a pilot, but seeing as how he really did not have many options, I really don’t know if the word “hero” is appropriate, despite how often that word appears in the Wikipedia article about him.
Nope. A proper hero would use a mix of incendiaries and explosives, and set them off *after *he leaves the building with the girl for a nice dramatic fireball in the background. If possible while swinging on a rope hanging from a helicopter with the girl in one arm.
It’s sort of the same question as the difference between courage and fearlessness, courage is feeling fear but acting anyway. More specifically related to the question by the OP, it would seem to me that the difference is that a hero puts the needs of others above his own, at the risk or actuality of personal injury or death whereas a reckless fool isn’t really taking the risks into account or is specifically doing something because it’s risky.
Bolding mine. And this may be getting into nitpick territory but in my opinion it’s precisely the fact that heroes *are *ordinary people that makes them heroic. They suddenly find themselves thrust into extraordinary (and overwhelmingly adverse) circumstances by chance, then prevail.
That’s why I dislike doling out the “hero” label so liberally (since 9/11) to firefighters, policemen, soldiers, etc. I grant all the previous are dedicated, selfless, commendable, etc. But they are in harm’s way by dint of their choice of occupation, not by unforeseeable circumstances.
And there are of course plenty of examples of true heroism even among these occupations. But to call everyone who ever put on a uniform a hero (as we seem to do anymore) cheapens the honor for those who truly deserve it.
I think this is an important point that the OP does not address - whether the act is in service of others. I would more likely label someone a hero who acts in service of others, whereas a reckless fool would be someone only in service of themself.
In this scenario a daring hero could be the one who makes no calculation for risk, whereas a reckless fool could be very prepared.
I realize this is shifting the perspective, but it is what I consider important.