Remembering the names of people who have done good things and sharing the stories of what they have done to inspire others to go and do the same. It is a simple premise and one that is common enough in human culture that I am not sure where the argument is coming from.
edit - you can also even apply the same technique to try and warn people of bad things. Go wild with it.
But not an irrelevant one, in this discussion, surely. Which is the point the comment parent was attempting to make, and you, probably because you dislike Christopher Hitchens (which I do as well, but anyway) you refused to acknowledge.
I've heard of Florence Nightengale. But I've also heard of Mother Teresa. My knowing even good things about a person doesn't necessarily impact how good of a person they actually were. I remember reading books as a kid with Mother Teresa in them as a totally sanctified figure, but what Christopher Hitchens says about her is probably true, and so she's not worth the respect that I gained for her and carried with me for so long.
I think it is an astute observation. For all I really know, Florence Nightengale was just an unskilled doctor-wannabe who ran around Crimea amputating people without cause. People that I think of as good aren't necessarily so. We have to remain skeptical.
Florence Nightingale was not a randomly chosen figure. The argument was about what the point is of making heroes out of people. The thing is, when Florence first got to the Crimea, she was pretty rubbish at keeping folk alive, but she promoted the cause relentlessly back at home. It was her use of that celebrity that eventually got money and resources out to the Crimea and that saved more lives there than her medical skills did at the time.
In the long run, by her use of statistics, she invented modern nursing and much of the practice of evidence based medicine, but she got started by establishing a name for herself.
