Syllogisms etc.

All heroes deserve freedom.

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Therefore Edward Snowden deserves freedom.

Assuming both premises are true, this statement is valid. Now, is it sound?

Language is the first barrier to be tackled. What defines a hero? Where should one look for such definition? Since dictionaries vary, shall we use the most "reliable" one, perhaps the Merriam Webster Dictionary? If, if we were to use its formal definition, a hero would be "a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities" (Merriam Webster). Here we stumble upon another language barrier, what defines a great act or a fine quality? Such subjective terms call us to look into different cultural values and judgements of what makes a "hero", which will be discussed later on.

The next term to be defined is "freedom". Merriam Webster defines it as "the quality or state of being free". Things are further complicated when one searches for the definition of free, which can mean (1) "having the legal and political rights of a citizen", (2) "choosing or capable of choosing for itself", or (3) "not physically held by something". Which one of these should we use? All three? Considering the political context behind Snowden's story, should only the first definition be relevant? What if a so called "hero" turned himself in to the authorities and was put in jail, giving himself the freedom of choosing to have one of his unalienable rights removed (liberty)? Is he free or not? Let's take this to another level. I'm doing this assignment by choice. But then again, I'm not. I do the work assigned because I need to get good grades. I need good grades in order to be accepted into a decent university, which will ensure a stable and comfortable future where I will be able to survive on my own. Today I wish I hadn't woken up so early. I wish I did not have to take an economics test tomorrow. I also wish I could skip assembly without the fear of being caught. People sometimes wish they could die; the choice of being born is given to none. Thus, to what extent are we free? Is not being physically restrained by shackles or bars, but still trapped in the never ending cycle of responsibilities, anxieties and time, enough? If not, freedom is an illusion. We are subject to time and much greater forces infinitely beyond our control. If you want to take it to an existentialist level, we can begin questioning the existence of freedom of choice and the effects of our decisions in our lives.

But this will lead endless talking and perhaps to some unwanted conclusions as well, thus, taking the context of the argument in consideration, let us assume that the definition of freedom is associated with the granting of political rights and the lack of physical restraints. Remember, we are only human; it is impossible to consider everything. Our brains work by selecting information and ignoring the rest, something that cannot be helped.

Now, we question, (1) is Snowden a hero? And (2) do heroes really deserve freedom?

A highly controversial figure, Snowden has been praised by many as a whistleblower and hero, and condemned by others as a traitor. Ask an average Graded student, he/she will probably tell you he's a hero. Ask a hardcore republican, he/she will most likely disagree. Polls have shown that about 3/4 of the American population, after hearing about the NSA surveillance programs, believe the US government has gone too far. Is what the majority believes what one should consider to be true? As of 30 years ago (or even less), the opinions of the majority of the western population regarding religion, race, and sexuality were very, very different as to what the majority believes in today.
According to the "hero" definition, Snowden's action would have to be "great or brave" and he'd have to have "fine qualities". For the sake of time, let us assume that these two qualities are the necessary conditions for a hero. We could create another TOK blog to simply discuss its definition, but since we do not have time for this, we will have to work with such givens. Due to the vagueness of such terms, almost anyone can call him a hero or deny any heroic qualities in him. The dictionary's definition of brave is to "show no fear; not be afraid". But showing is very different than being. Is this an and/or situation, where to be brave, one would have to show no fear or not be afraid? If so, one could claim Snowden is/was a brave man. Whether his actions were noble or hateful is irrelevant. Defying the most powerful government in the world and risk everything to be persecuted by the American police requires a lot of courage. Thus, the first half of the hero criteria has been covered. Now what of the "fine qualities"? To some, Snowden is a whistleblower who deserves recognition, to others, he is simply a traitor. Being the former is far from a "fine quality", but what if Snowden had other fine qualities, such as being a great listener? Would that still allow us to classify him as a hero, or would the existence of any not so fine qualities immediately disqualify him? Thus, the question is not is Snowden a hero? It is to whom is he a hero? Due to the subjectivity of its meaning and the controversy around this figure, there will never be a true answer, no matter what the majority might believe in.

Do heroes deserve freedom? Hitler was a hero to many during his time (and still is). If a hero was a hero the same way a hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom, once you count the number of protons and electrons, there is no denying it (since having one proton and one electron is the definition of a hydrogen atom), then we could consider his deserving of freedom. But because a universal hero does not exist, and the human population will probably never reach a consensus as to what makes one, there is no way to confirm this statement.

But let us assume there was a general consensus on Snowden's bravery and fine qualities. With situations as these, where there is no formal definition or scientific proof necessary, notice how we usually choose to go with the opinion of the majority in order to find the "truth". This, of course, can be misleading and is shaped by various cultural factors. Language itself is shaped by cultural factors. But back to Snowden. Assuming he was a hero, would he deserve freedom? According to the US constitution, all men are born with unalienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is not a fact. It is not true in the same way photosynthesis is true. Someone came up with this idea of "unalienable rights", and most of western culture embraced it. Thus, we would have to rephrase this statement to: According to western ideals/culture/beliefs, all men are born with alienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A human hero is a human, and therefore, according to western ideals, he is born with alienable rights. That would be enough to prove that a hero "deserves" freedom, for it is a right granted to him/her. BUT. Oh God, another but. What about prisoners who had their liberty taken away from them? What about capital punishment? What about sadomasochist psychopaths who need to hurt others in order to be "happy"? OK, perhaps I went too far, since prisoners are in prison and are sentenced to capital punishment for removing those rights from others, an eye for an eye as Hammurabi would say. But heroes, are, well, heroic. They are attributed with admirable qualities and work for the greater good. Thus, most of us would agree that nice people who save lives probably do not deserve to have their hands bound and rights removed. There is no way to formally prove this, and thus, we work with what is generally accepted by most.

And this is where Snowden comes in. To some, he is a traitor who must be detained. To others, he is a hero. Because of language and varying opinions, beliefs, and interpretations, the truth behind these premises changes from one person to the other. There is no way this will ever be SOUND. Just like anything else, really. Language and its different interpretations, in this case, will forever be a obstacle.

Notice how many assumptions I had to make to reach this conclusion. When opinions vary, could we consider the predominant belief as "more true"?

To me, the second premise is definitely true. I know this based from what I have heard, read and watched in the news. I also know this because I was raised in a culture where open mindedness, beliefs in privacy and citizen's rights and the democratic party have always prevailed. The first premise is still being debated within myself, for a hero can also be a murderer, an idiot, or a psychopath, or all three. I don't think I'm ready for such an assertive "all" statement yet.