The things is that the way you are using the word “hero” here simply isn’t what it means by any standard definition. As magellan01 says, every standard definition of “hero” includes an element of the hero doing something admirable, or at the very least having some innate admirable quality. Simply being a passive victim of happenstance does not fit the standard definition at all.
Earlier you said “That’s just my particular view. You don’t have to share it.” Thing is though, language pretty much has to be about shared understanding. If you think potato means an edible tuber and I think it means a four legged companion animal that barks, things are going to get awful confusing.
I’m descriptivist rather than prescriptivist when it comes to language and I recognise it as inevitable that words slowly change their meaning. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t consider that those who use words to mean whateverthehell they want are part of the problem rather than part of the solution when it comes to clear communication and understanding.
But what did they do that was heroic, other than dying? That makes any murder victim a hero, no matter what the circumstances.
Now, I would definitely say that the people who managed to over-power the hijackers and crash the plane in Shanksville were heros. But they risked their lives willingly – they acted, knowing that they weren’t going to survive, but to save the lives of others.
That doesn’t make the other victims cowards, or diminish what happened to them – but they’re not heros.
‘Hero’ in general is an abused term. A hero is someone who puts themselves in immediate life threatening risk to save another, everything else is bravery or less.
I do think it’s often the case that heros truly don’t agree that they are one. They were in a certain circumstance and acted quickly with the only course that made any sense to them. I think most heroic acts aren’t conscious deliberations at all, which makes it the only scarce moments of true Altruism the human being is capable of.
When it happens it’s remarkable and deserves to be recognized, all the more so because the ones that do it don’t really think they’re special.
I’d say no. We can shower them rightly with praise with words like “brave”, “fearless”, etc. In reality, they’ve just chosen to take on a dangerous job. Similarly, I wouldn’t say a firemen who goes into a burning building is necessarily a hero, either. With the training they have and the equipment, many times the risk is minimal. But when the order to exit the building is given, and one of them sweeps the floor again because he hears a voice and saves the person, that’s the stuff of heroism. I just don’t get the willingness to cheapen the word. I seems to stem from us wanting to shower praise on people who act admirably around danger. That’s not enough in my book.
…and my response is capitulation. So if John Mace gets cut off in traffic, he’s a hero. If an armed gunman rappels down from the roof, crashes through a window, slides down the ventilation ducts into the garage and takes control of an armored car filled with cash and bullion, he is definitely a coward.
I agree with the OP, and think that this tendency arises simply from a desire to sympathize with the one group and denegrate the other - which is understandable enough, but which is watering down the meanings of these terms.
That’s actually another one that people seem to want to cheapen, especially among Muslims. To me, a martyr is someone who knowingly accepts death rather than going against their beliefs, not someone who was killed in some circumstance vaguely related to a belief, or even someone who is killed doing something dangerous, but not necessarily fatal, in support of their beliefs.
Since 9/11, the word “hero” has been rendered nearly meaningless by ridiculous overuse.
Kind of like the word “genius” having been devalued to where it now means “talented.”
There’s a women’s bike race around here being advertised called “Divas on Wheels”. Maybe I’ll send them a letter and ask what the cyclists plan to perform as they ride, because I have no idea why else the organizers would decide to use the word “diva”. It doesn’t even alliterate. I can think of a word that does, though: “women”.