As a thought experiment, let's try to imagine the unimaginable. Let's put ourselves in the radical fundamentalist culture of the 9/11 hijackers. Would we view them as heroes? Why or why not?
How about the Japanese kamikaze pilots?
Would you consider someone from the US military a hero for sacrificing himself so that his fellow soldiers could survive?
Interesting, as I contend it is the perspective that determines the outcome of the answers. Since you have asked that we put ourselves into the mindset of a radical fundamentalist culture of the 9/11 hijackers - then I would have to say that they can be viewed both ways. As a radical that is so far to the right wing thought of a religion and consider that we are in a holy war against the Christian infidels then yes I would say that the hijackers are heroes and brought to light that biblically - they should be considered as David against Goliath of the old testament. As a moderate member of that same culture, I would have to admit that while I may not like, nor respect the viewpoint of the US government, it is not the populace that has made me feel this way, and that innocents should never be placed in harm's way nor have to suffer for their leaders. I would have to say that I feel sympathy for the hijackers and what they had to decide in taking their own lives, but I could not agree with the action nor the outcome.
The Japanese Kamikazes were dedicated to the culture of their country. They are the same as our own troops fighting for what they believed was sacred to them. The Japanese culture and in our case the culture of America. Many of the survivors have said that it was not until they left the airport that they discovered that the wheels on the plane became detached on takeoff. To land was to die needlessly, to try and parachute out was not an option with no parachute and the hatch bolted shut from the outside. It then became only one option left to them and that was to make as much damage to the enemy (allies) as they could to try and have their loved ones survive the war. For some it was not heroism but a matter of accepting their fate.
Your third scenario would seemingly be the easiest for us to agree on. Of course, the soldier is a hero. He save the lives of many by forfeiting his. It is an admirable thing. But is it? It is planned suicide. But it is also a showing of unconditional love for their fellow friends. It may be done so others can proper and life safely, it may have been done to demonstrate a wrong ideology to another. It is what Ghandi preached when his civilian troops stood unarmed in front of British soldiers and died without any weapons in hand, to demonstrate and persuade the British to discontinue from the course it was taking. Each civilian accepted that they may die for the cause which would benefit all of India, and that another would also give their life for them if necessary.
Which may interject the thought that the difference between suicide and heroism is the end result. If we commit suicide because we personally cannot find a way to cope with the world, are at an end point with some situation and the other person that would benefit is the person doing the suicide then it is considered a sin. If the same scenario ends with a benefit to others then that person is a hero. Maybe the question is, how many people have to benefit from a death to be considered a heroic death? Either way the person is dead. Maybe the suicide was the easiest way to handle the situation for both.
