Shade Wield/Essay on Heroism
From Unofficial Handbook of the Virtue Universe
This writing was found amongst Stephan Wielders personal effects after his death.
Contents |
Labelling
Labels are the worst kind of lie that can exist. By applying a label to an individual, animal or object, we in essence deny its ability to act as other labelled aspects. For an object this is not as dangerous, since a table is unlikely to protest its inability to be used as a chair, bench or bed. With animals it becomes a little more complex, since science defines itself based on those labels, which just makes it difficult when they discover aspects of life that didn't consult the label makers and defy the labels granted to them.
For an individual, a thinking, sentient, sapient individual, this labelling can be catastrophic. Let us look at the basic ideas of what it means to be a 'hero', a genuine cliche hero.
A hero is: - Selfless - Generous - Courageous - Self sacrificing - Unable to kill
Remember, these are the ideals most people hold high, the ones that if someone conforms to we all feel a measure of respect for them. Think of how many Heroes you know or know of who conform to these ideals, now compare that number to the number of registered heroes in the world. To be a hero requires some measure of courage and selflessness, to be able to put the good of others before yourself, risking your life for them. But this ideal, invariably associated with the label, comes at a cost. We hold these heroes up to ideals we never would expect of the common person on the street, yet when they fail to live up to these enormous high standards they are to be criticised.
Let us examine what that means. Someone tries to be an icon for the world, an individual acting as proof that there are good people who will sacrifice themselves for others. They then fall short, by only a narrow margin (perhaps they freeze up in the face of fear, or they grab a few notes from a bank robbery they stopped, to help pay the bills), and they are condemned. They still show ideals most people would aspire to, but by falling short of the label they have taken for themselves, they are seen as little better then the criminals we are protected from. In both the eyes of the public, and possibly in their own eyes, which at times has been shown in the past to be the start of a slippery slope from paragon of virtue to prince (or princess) of vice.
So why do we use these labels, if they are inadequate and do not work. For peace of mind, to put it simply. We know there are people who are selfish, who use their great powers and abilities for selfish means, and whom we need protecting from, whom we label 'villains' for simplicity. It is comforting to think that there is a line of heroes standing guard against this ever-present threat. Dividing the world into two simple battle lines of good and evil is the simplistic, child-like thought we use to tuck ourselves in at night.
Judge, Jury and Executioner
That last requirement is perhaps the most controversial. The inability to kill. I will admit, I have at times killed people, but it was never intentional. A strike that was meant to knock someone out instead broke their spine, or the railing I kicked them into gave way and they tumbled to the ground. That is not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about people who claim the label 'hero', yet go out to kill villains. I admit there are more of them then people realise. There are few doubts that many of the people they kill simply cannot be rehabilitated, they are criminals, causing harm to those around them, by choice rather then necessity. In the long run society is probably safer without the possibility of them breaking out of prison. It is probably even better that society doesn't have to pay money to keep them in prison, and can instead use that money for social improvement programs. But does that make it right?
Even if nine out of ten of those sent to jail will just reoffend the moment they get out, that still leaves one out of that ten who will turn their life around. Shouldn't all the stops be pulled out for that one man? He does deserve the chance to correct his mistakes, something that will never happen if he is killed.
Another criticism of Heroes who kill indescriminantly comes from a public opinion perspective. If Heroes genuinely attempt to save people, rather then kill them, the public is more likely to trust them. Who would you trust more if you saw hanging around your neighbourhood, Captain Selfless, who ensures everyone he catches is given a fair trial, or Lord Darkity, who puts a bullet in people who jaywalk?
Heroes forget their role within the social process alot of the time. We are there to assist the law in capturing people, we do not have the right or the authority to act as judge, jury and executioner to anyone we think is guilty.
Villainy
So what seperates these heroes who kill from villains who kill? Or makes these heroes who kill better then villains who DO NOT kill? The end goal, in some instances. The simplest definitive difference between a 'vigilante' and a 'villain' is what they are attempting to do. Many villains act out of a selfish need, putting themselves before others, protecting only themselves, or those closest to them. But again, this is a gross generalisation. There are many people the public perceive as villains who genuinely believe they are making the world a better place, they are often the most dangerous. The selfish villain will flee if the benefit (lots of money) is outweighed by the likely cost (a sound beating and jail), but the villain who believes he is the hero will battle on despite odds against him, and is very difficult to stop.
So then, what DOES make a hero a hero, and a villain a villain? There is no definitive answer. Heroism and Villainism cannot be assigned with a card or a legally binding jail term. To make things simple, so often these labels ARE assigned by legal representatives, acting in accordance with the law. But the law, like everything made by mere mortals, is fallible.
No heroes or villains
In the end, what can we derive from all this? There is one simple fact I wish to get across, that I hope you've come to yourself.
There ARE no 'Heroes' and 'Villains'. There are simply people. People with incredible abilities and potential. There are no 'Heroes', but there are certainly people who I would call a hero. There is no collective group that can be labeled 'villains', but there are certain people I would call a villain (although only to their face if they were tied up and unconscious, I admit).
The collective labelling of people as one or the other ignores the fact that people are a forever permiable aspect of life, and cannot be truly and effectively quantified. The next time someone calls themself a hero, I want you to stop and think if they have genuinely earned the title. But I also want you to not be harsh on them if they have not. Even if they haven't, they are still a sentient individual, just like you, who deserves respect for that reason alone. Anyway, maybe they simply have not earned it -yet-.
