2006-09-07 14:27:57 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Sociology
The better hero is the one who accomplished their goal most effectively, regardless of whether they lived or died. Dying for a cause, but accomplishing nothing productive is an irrelevant death.
2006-09-07 14:34:43 · answer #1 · answered by Jim T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think one is "better" than the other. Why would you want to rate Heroism? They hero that saves a baby from a burning building is no less than the hero's who have died defending our freedom.
Get a life. No better yet get a dictionary and learn the true meaning of hero.
2006-09-07 14:35:17 · answer #2 · answered by crazycat.lady 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither, as I do not believe the one who gave his life planned to die...it just happened. And, the one lived did not tell himself he would quit if it came to death. They both did what they had to do at the time.
2006-09-07 14:43:15 · answer #3 · answered by wbecca52 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are equally heroes . Managing to stay alive , by luck or by wit does not a hero make .
2006-09-07 14:41:55 · answer #4 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are both Hero's...you can't put one ahead of the other...of course there is a bigger sacrafice when you give your life...but it just means he thought that way was the way for him.
2006-09-07 14:43:18 · answer #5 · answered by tweetz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
one who gave his life for a cause Like my homey Jesus
2006-09-07 15:07:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the cause.
2006-09-07 14:34:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both, but it is better to live and be heroic again.
2006-09-07 14:34:01 · answer #8 · answered by Nelson_DeVon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
both hunn
2006-09-07 14:33:02 · answer #9 · answered by teeny* 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋