Dear Editor,

I was browsing through some formal definitions of hero, one of which explains a hero to be someone who is admired or idolised for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities — ‘a war hero’ is an example cited.

Interestingly, these characteristics listed above are traits that could easily become subjective. For instance, the noun “courage” in itself doesn’t indicate that the adjective “courageous” is good or bad, since it could be applied to a daring criminal as well as a fearless protector.

Outstanding achievements and noble qualities are also contingent on who thinks they are noble. The current conflict between Israel and Hamas or between Russia and Ukraine could very well be regarded by some as producing wars heroes, all depending on where one’s loyalty lies. The rule of morality is usually the first casualty in war, whereby the distinction between right and wrong is as foggy and unpredictable as the battlefield.

There are good reasons why admiring or idolising someone as a hero is just as detrimental to the idol as the idoliser — both often become the martyrs of a praised illusion.

In a world in which ruthlessness, egocentrism, and the survival of the fittest rule, being as morally upright as humanly possible, doing to your neighbour as you would have them do to you, being the Good Samaritan, or being kind to your enemies while assisting those who are weak and helpless are more astounding proof of heroism than often memorialised courage and boldness.

Bravery, fortitude, and even goodness do not have to be officiated.

Homer Sylvester

New York

h2sylvester@gmail.com