It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero

The definition of a hero is broad as it can range from eminent historical figures who advance human rights and freedom to an ordinary person who sacrifices himself or herself to save other’s people lives. However, it is a hotted debate in society as some people suggest that heroism should exclusively be limited to those people who are already gone. However, I somewhat disagree with this viewpoint and argue that any living men or women are equally qualified to be considered as heroes for their deeds as those who passed away.

There are many historical figures who are considered heroes for their great contributions to mankind. However, there are also living people nowadays whose contribution that benefit society a lot. For instance, Edward Jenner, a British doctor who was pioneer in the field of medicine, invented vaccination which helps eliminated smallpox and potentially saved tens of millions of people who might contract it. Similarly, there are a lot of living doctors who also invested great efforts to combat the diseases that take away many people. For example, Howard Cheng, a leading expert on liver cancer, has invented an effective way to slow down the spread of cancerous cells to other parts of the body, which greatly extends the longevity of people struck by liver cancer. The contribution of both doctors had made great advances in medicine and save people's lives. As a result, they ought to be equally considered hero, albeit living or not.

There are other types of people, whose contribution may not directly involves saving people's lives, ought to be considered heroes for their sacrifice to preserve the values we cherish. For example, soldiers who fight terrorism abroad should be considered heroes, whether or not they are lauded posthumously for the valor they show in combat, as they all make great sacrifice living far away from home and safeguard liberty and freedom. Similarly, human rights activists who fight for freedom of speech against the authoritarian regimes should be regarded as heroes too as they put themselves in danger for the greater good. Thus, living men or women can be considered hero for the sacrifice they made.

Those who disagree with my views may argue that in order for someone to commended as a hero, a comprehensive and holistic review of him or her is requisite, and this can only be done posthumously. For instance, in the 1930s, Hitler was commended as a hero by the German population as he lifted them from poverty and societal instability following the end of World War One. By the present standard, Hitler was by no means a hero considered the atrocities he committed during World War 2. However, if the society deems it acceptable to laud a living mem or women hero for their actions, then isn’t it justified to say Hilter was a hero for his contribution to the reconstruction of Germany? In my opinion, this view is flawed as it neglects the fact that hero are commended for their actions, such as their contribution of saving lives or their sacrifice to safeguard values, both of which can stand scrutiny. If we examine Hitler's deeds in the 1930s, then we can conclude that he should not be lauded as a hero for his contribution in the first place as he implemented policies for economic recovery at the expense of other minorities, such as the Jewish people and the people of color. However, I also recognized that when society deem someone a hero, it should proceed with caution as their heroic contribution should withstand scrutiny.

In conclusion, in my opinion, it is acceptable for society to commend men or women for their contributions to mankind, such as making scientific advances to save lives or sacrifice their time or freedom to preserve values. However, society should examine their heroic deeds with caution so that every true hero deserve their applause from the society.