Is there morality without heroes?

I was thinking just after watching The Dark Knight Rises, and relating it to V for Vendetta:

Does the world need heroes? Yes. Not because others cannot fight evil, but because they need symbols, inspiration and, sometimes, that person willing to go beyond normal human limits to save the day or win the battle. In a utopian world of perfection, would we see a hero as such, or would we look for a hero who could shake things up? A hero who until needed is only seen as a villain?

When did government become the villain? Certainly, each form of government villainizes the others. And those who call for revolution each call the current establishment “tyranny.” Is there ever a point where everyone agrees that perfection has been achieved, or is there always someone who thinks it can be improved, much less people who are entirely dissatisfied with its philosophy?

Some heroes have access to wealth and gadgets. Others have superhuman intelligence or superb physical abilities. Some combine these attributes. In a perfect world, would the hero have none of them? Perhaps, in a world where there is no war and discomfort is not allowed, the person who chooses to feel uncomfortable, to risk conflict is the hero. But why is he a hero? Isn't he just seeking a new experience? Isn't he being selfish in trying to leave perfection? Or is he the only one who is aware, in his world, that perfection is not the absence of conflict. What do we fight for?

I don't think a nihilist could be a hero, and probably not a moral relativist. A nihilist hero could do nothing truly good nor truly evil. He would be free from such notions, at the expense of other. He would be a villain.

A hero who sticks to moral relativisim in its simple form, believing that each person has his or her own valid morality, could either choose to act out his or her own morality or try to honor each other person's. Perhaps a relativistic hero would be very interesting. A person with a complete moral code which does not match others' and who has the power to enact his or her will. Does that make him or her a villain? That depends if the victims are relativists, who allow the hero to have independent morality, or not. I guess, by saying it depends, I am allowing relativism.

Or am I. I am acknowledging that people disagree on morality, which is a fact. I am not making any meta-ethical evaluation of whether those members of the public are correct in being relativists or not.

But then again, have I decided what defines a villain? Whether he is or is not a villain based on universal morality, or whether it's up to the world he lives in? I believe there are universal morals, even if people disagree on them. Some are widely attested, but that doesn't make them more true than the morals we haven't even discovered.

A hero is more to me than a person who fits our moral view. A hero is a person who reminds us that we all do agree on some moral truth. A hero crystallizes morality, makes it visible by his or her actions. And even when a hero does something which doesn't seem the best strategically, isn't utilitarian enough in the face of adversity, that in itself is what defines him or her as a hero.

A world without death, or a world without crime, perhaps would seem to be a world without heroes or a world which doesn't need them. But for us to appreciate the story, to hear the moral truth we are listening for to validate it, someone will have to step forward and remind us what a hero is. Someone will have to remind us that morality has truths, even if they are difficult to discern. Or at least, someone will have to make us think of these truths by being the villain, defining the opposite of them.