I'm not trying to shut down abstract debate or discussion on the issue of animal welfare/rights/liberation, but I do perceive a lack of context leading to condescending criticism of others living in tough circumstances where they literally can't trust the ground they stand on to not suddenly kill them.
If I was given total control over your life and made you work for me, would you be ok with that so long as, according to me, I treated you well enough? I doubt it.
That isn’t the point though. This is not a debate about whether anyone thinks the rat is being treated well.
The rat did not consent to this (because it can’t), so this is, factually, forced labor. I am ok with it in this situation, but let’s call it what it is and express gratitude for what the rat did to clean up human messes.
Second, you can’t do something heroically if you either 1) don’t know what you are doing and what the risks are or 2) there are no risks. Take your pick, but either way it isn’t heroic. The rat did a great thing for us but hero is not the right word.
On the other hand, anyone who's owned an uncooperative dog will know that it's nigh-impossible to effectively train an animal who just doesn't feel like playing along.
By definition, if you treat me well "enough", I'm already satisfied. That's a silly proposition.
In this thought experiment, like the rat, you have no say in what constitutes being treated “well enough.”
The opposite of heroic is cowardly and it perfectly describes people that try to silence opposing opinions.
From Webster, heroic: of a kind that is likely only to be undertaken to save a life.
This rat's work has saved lives. So, we can call it heroic. It is not even anthropomorphic strictly speaking.