The hero or the fool?

Famousdebater: Also determined. Admirably determined.
If my mom admires how determined I am, then I would be a hero.

Bi0Hazard: You assume that for something to actually be classied as an admirable act it only takes one admirer.

In the same way that you wouldn't describe a terrorist as admirable because another terrorist admires them, you wouldn't describe yourself as an admirable person because your mom admires your determination.

Bi0Hazard: In short, the definition of hero leads into a separate (though not mutually exclusive) semantics debate regarding the term 'admirable.'

Famousdebater: You assume that for something to actually be classied as an admirable act it only takes one admirer.
Something wrong with that? That is part of being admirable.
In the same way that you wouldn't describe a terrorist as admirable because another terrorist admires them, you wouldn't describe yourself as an admirable person because your mom admires your determination.
In order to be admirable, you need people to admire you.

Bi0Hazard: Definition of admirable: deserving respect and approval.

It says nothing about number of admirers. A person that runs into a burning building to save a child could be considered admirable even without admirers.

Famousdebater: "Respect" and "approval" are something coming from another person.
could be considered admirable even without admirers.
How is this person considered as admirable?
An admirable person is someone who deserves respect and approval which can only come from another person.

Bi0Hazard: If one person respects somebody it doesn't mean that they are deserving of it.

I could say I respect ISIS. Does that mean ISIS are deserving of respect?

Famousdebater: It requires people to consider the person as worthy of respect and approval.
I could say I respect ISIS. Does that mean ISIS are deserving of respect?
I don't know, but it is up to people to judge them as worthy of approval and respect.

Bi0Hazard: I don't know, but it is up to people to judge them as worthy of approval and respect

Exactly. The key word is people. If it worked by your logic (ie. one person being able to classify somebody as admirable) then loads of terrible people would be considered admirable/deserving of respect.

The way I view it is that you can be considered to be deserving of respect by consistently doing things that are considered to be difficult and praise-worthy within your culture/community.

To me, that seems a lot more logical than the logic you present because a load of people that most people hate/strongly dislike would be deserving of respect such as Hitler and ISIS (they both had/have admirers).

Famousdebater: Exactly. The key word is people. If it worked by your logic (ie. one person being able to classify somebody as admirable) then loads of terrible people would be considered admirable/deserving of respect.
You are demonstrating my point by saying that some "terrible people" would be considered admirable. It is you that can call a person terrible and you that can admire/respect a person.
The way I view it is that you can be considered to be deserving of respect by consistently doing things that are considered to be difficult and praise-worthy within your culture/community.
The moral relativist view.
To me, that seems a lot more logical than the logic you present because a load of people that most people hate/strongly dislike would be deserving of respect such as Hitler and ISIS (they both had/have admirers).
People respect and admire, so it makes sense that they are what make a person worthy of approval and respect.
I believe in objective morality, but people can be admirable by being admired by people. Not just by defined cultural values in your location.

Bi0Hazard: It is you that can call a person terrible and you that can admire/respect a person.

Of course I can admire somebody but again, I acknowledge that they can be considered to not be admirable. I refer to 'terrible' in an innate context such as referring to ISIS or Hitler. They are both generally considered to be terrible - especially in the Western world, which coincides with my viewpoint that being admirable can be determined by cultures/communities.

The moral relativist view.

Yes, I am a moral relativist.

people can be admirable by being admired by people.

I agree. People can be admired by people. Within a culture people will classify somebody as deserving of respect (ie. admirable) if they do things that coincide with their cultural values and are things that are deemed praise-worthy within that culture. That is still the people admiring people, it's just people admiring a person based on their community/cultural values as a source of guidance.

I believe in objective morality

You believe that God is the source, I assume?

Famousdebater: They are both generally considered to be terrible - especially in the Western world, which coincides with my viewpoint that being admirable can be determined by cultures/communities.
So, in the end, it goes to what you believe the nature of morality is.
You believe that God is the source, I assume?
Yes.

Bi0Hazard: So, in the end, it goes to what you believe the nature of morality is.

Yes, because ultimately that is the way that is the most logical (at least to me it is).

Yes

At some point I'm going to make a thread on the origins of morality where I'll probably discuss this in further detail then. Thanks for contributing.

Famousdebater: I've risked my life to save others and it is neither brave nor foolish. It is an instinctual thing. When somebody says that anyone would do the same, they are being honest. Ypu leave your body and instincts take over

Wylted: I think the answer to this subject is simple. How do we view the actions of firefighters, lifeboat crews, lifeguards, police, mountain rescue teams and all the other men/women who regularly put the saving of others before their own safety?. Personally any man/woman who saved my bacon would get a big kiss and a Christmas card.