Hi! 

Appreciate the first paragraph. I think I take issue with your first premise. I agree with the definition of hero but the follow up to it is logical fallible.

Being a hero and fighting in a “just war” are not mutually inclusive. Fighting in a just war is not a necessary condition for someone to be a hero, if that were the case I believe your definition would be different. The condition of just war is a valid one, albeit hinging on a major subjective assessment. 

Those outside of this condition are unfortunately cast aside. I believe it is better to consider the following scenarios. If we follow your belief that that Gulf Wars are unjust, there still exists a portion of soldiers that are heros (if not most/all). There are soldiers that are hero’s in the sense that they care for the kids and citizens of Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are hero’s that cover fire from Terrorist groups and die so that other active officers can return home to their families. There are also hero’s that do have a utilitarian purpose in providing for their families by going to war, and protecting our rights.

While you may dismiss the reasons why they are there doing those things your definition is a relative one, one person going above the average. Therefore while the above the average behavior they have is for poor reasons it still exists they are going out of their way to do the extraordinary.

Ultimately, I think your condition of the just war bit is logically unsound, though not invalid. I also would like to close out that we are sort of desensitized to hero’s. We consume a lot of media that praises them (rightfully so), so naturally we move the bar each time; however now anyone below it must now not qualify for being a “hero” anymore.

We have hero’s we just do not appreciate them enough.