Defining "Hero" Batman, Robin Hood, and Hong Gildong

In the tough economic times, people have referred to the concept of "heroes" because they are, in many cases, what ordinary people cannot be. In theory, anyone can be a hero, as the famous quote about hero said by May Parker in the film Spiderman-2. But, only few chooses to, as being a hero, whether in real life or in fictions, requires great sacrifices.

Batman, Robin Hood, and Hong Gildong

There is no dispute that Superman is a hero. He has superpowers, saves the citizens from enemies like Lex Luthor, and essentially spends his entire lifetime for others. It may be possible to argue the same for Batman, Robin Hood, and Hong Gildong, but there are difficulties.

If "hero" can be defined as someone with good characters who dedicates his life to save people from evilness, how do we justify the action when such dedications deviate from the order of society?

This first question is essentially the central theme of all of the three heroes. They are placed in the corrupted society, where the law and order of the society cannot sufficiently answer the growing crimes. At the same time, the most fundamental concept of the law is to adhere to the fundamentals. Is it possible for the society to permit certain individuals who disobey the law and yet allow others? If so, then the law must be flexible enough to allow this, but the grounds for doing so are unclear. It is easy to see that those three heroes did good things that the usual order in the society failed to do so. But, does that mean that being a hero dismiss the necessity for individuals to follow the laws, provided that a good cause exists?

In these stories, the three heroes make the decision on behalf of all the other citizens by choosing to fight for them. Is this action valid?

Heroes do what normal people cannot, and these three heroes certainly do this. Whether it is rescuing people from dangerous situations or taking money from ignorant rich to needy poor, the actions are usually commendable and receive accolades from the people. Yet, what if the people did not want the heroes (as usually shows in one or more episodes in Marvel comics)? Just as the heroes often do not have "choices" to do what they do based on personal history, people too may feel that not everything that heroes do to them results based on free choice. If this is indeed the case, what is the central assumption that underlies the accepted existence of the heroes?

Yet they are heroes, and this is possibly why .

Other day, I watched a documentary called Batman Unmasked, and in one of the parts, it discussed how people with severe childhood can either become a hero or a villain, but it is the chosen mindset that leads one from becoming another. I don't necessarily think that the borderline between a hero and a villain is as simple as this documentary argues, but I do agree to a certain extent that becoming a hero for such individuals is largely based on the correct perception. In other words, it may be possible to condemn Robin Hood for stealing from the wealthy, but if we can justify his perception that his actions were closer to a hero than a villain to the society in general, then perhaps, it is right to say that he is a hero. Furthermore, it is possible to make counterarguments towards the first two questions asked earlier in this paper. One, the objectives of the society continue to change, depending on the type of people ruling it. Similarly, the perception of the individuals changes as well, so it is not always possible to have a clear view of the people.

This complexity, unclearness, and openness is exactly the reason why these three characters have been such interesting "heroes" in the history.