When the U.S. flag is to be flown at half-staff, as decreed by President Eisenhower.
Also, see this too.
Good discussion, everyone.
I think Subfixer may have done this already, but since I love discussions about language, its evolution and use, it's always good to start with a definition:
According to Webster's College Dictionary 4th Ed., a hero is:
1 a man (mythological or legendary) of great strength and courage, favored by the gods and in part descended from them, often regarded as a half-god and worshiped after his death
2 any person, esp. a man, admired for courage, nobility, or exploits, esp. in war
3 any person, esp. a man, admired for qualities or achievements and regarded as an ideal or model
4 the central male character in a novel, play, poem, etc., with whom the reader or audience is supposed to sympathize
5 the central figure in any important event or period, honored for outstanding qualities
6 HERO SANDWICH
Now, from this, I think you can make arguments for and against the thread's main thesis, which is that the word, "hero", has been cheapened.
Words have a certain weight, a heft, and too often they are used without regard for that weight. We can blame it on media. However, I think that answer is too simplistic; it's too easy throw out there. Which media is to blame? News? Sports? Radio? TV? Books? Magazines? Computers? Advertising inside Walmart stores?Comic books? It's all media.
There are many works regarding the effect of language, words, and meaning, and how these things change over time. And while this may be part of the difficulty, I suspect it's something more general:
People are less concerned with knowing the words to precisely say that which they mean to say. As I like to point out, curmudgeon that I am, while tragedies are sad events, not all sad events are tragedies (your local newscasters probably would disagree). I prefer Aristotle's view of the tragic, though I can live with the Elizbethan one too. 20th-century tragedy lacks a certain loftiness in my opinion.
On the other hand, humans have always glamorized sports stars, all the way back to the Olympic games and Roman gladiatorial contests. Whenever we place someone on a pedestal and "worship" them, we turn them into heroes of one sort or another.
We have always glamorized warriors--Spartacus, Nelson, Washington, Grant, Patton, Yeager, Schwarzkopf (and just as often demonize the other side). We memorialize them. Does that mean every enlisted man is a hero? It's a matter of perspective, right? He's a hero to someone: If not to a nation, maybe to a state/province; if not a state/province, maybe a town; if not a town, perhaps a father, mother, sister, brother, son, or daughter.
When is it appropriate to use a word and when is it not? Can a boy say to his father, "You're my hero, Dad," and have it mean exactly what it says? I think so. What is the boy left with otherwise? "My heart bursts with love and pride for you, Dad." OK, similar, but not quite the same effect.
What's more, you're the hero in your own life's story, aren't you? I know I am. If I was only a secondary character, that would kinda suck.
I think we can argue this, adequately, from many sides, and I think we're all going to be able to come up with good points supporting our particular view.
Stay curious, my friends. But keep it lighthearted. None of us are going to fix the world's woes on the FSM Forum.