My rough draft introduction to, Defining a Hero.

Today I would like to ask the question, "What is it that makes a man a hero?" Is it his actions, his words, his deeds? If so, who determines which actions, words, or deeds are to be considered good? To one man a certain action may be good, whereas to another it may be perilous. For example, if an American soldier had subdued Hitler and consequently ended the war, the Allied forces (America, Britain, etc.) would have hailed him as a hero, whereas the Axis (Germany, Japan, etc.) may have considered this man the world's greatest villain. This is because of cultural perspective. A group of men will call a man a hero if he can uphold the standards and values of the society to an extent that others would or could not be able to do in the same situation. Although this may be an accurate description of a hero, it seems insufficient. His actions may be out of the reach of the ordinary man, but does he merit the title of hero? To be considered a hero, it seems that he must exemplify some sort of self-sacrifice. The man in the example is considered a hero to the Americans not because he was lucky and therefore able to end the war, but put his life in harms way in order to save millions of lives. This self-sacrifice causes him to stand out against other men as a hero. However, he is only a hero to those who share his worldview. Great men are defined in history by the stronger society. If this is true, then heroes are subject to the worldview or moral values of the strongest culture. However, one must ask if this is always the case. Is heroism a relative definition determined by each culture individually or are there objective cross-cultural qualifications that define it?