Cowardice: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Cowardice » Cowardice

Cowardice
Is it better to be a Live Coward, or a Dead Hero?

Page: 1 2

Cowardice

cangiz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/28/08 - 12:02 PM: Subject: Cowardice	#1
Hello everyone, I would like to ask this question upon you all. Is it better to be a Live Coward or a Dead Hero? I personally think, that cowardice, while not noble, is the right choice. We as humans are instinctively born to 1. survive, 2. to start a family line. While being a hero sounds glorious, you are dead, and nothing more can be done. Denying human nature does not work out as well in movies. I personally would rather survive and possibly be labeled a coward, then end my life saving someone.

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 04/28/08 - 12:32 PM:	#2
Or are we instintively born to seek status by fighting? Girls don't favour cowards, so neither does evolution. Arguing from human instinct is dangerous and almost certainly irrelevant to what is 'right'. But more importantly, to die is to cease being, so there is no question of ever 'being' a dead hero. Instead compare a long life of being despised by oneself and society, with a shorter (possibly) life of self satisfaction and the admiration of society. Then the balance is more fine, no?
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Kreius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 80

Posted 04/28/08 - 12:49 PM:	#3
unenlightened wrote: Or are we instintively born to seek status by fighting? Girls don't favour cowards, so neither does evolution. But girls can make positive judgements on a potential mate by his ingenuity, if you remember all those cliché high-school movies where the protagonist is a 'zero', and he has the hots for a girl who's dating the captain of the football team, then the captain goes to beat up the protagonist. The girlfriend sees this, and gets mad at the boyfriend, and we have the pivotal moment of her character story-wise. Women (aside from sluts and gold-diggers) are rarely purely attracted by the brawniness of a man since this isn't enough of a pre-requisite to mate with him (she needs to establish trustworthiness). This is the kind of character that the op is presumably talking about, at least to the extent that a man (I'd be bold enough to assume that women rarely do this) goes down fighting to protect his 'manliness', which is apparently what chicks dig the least.
_____________________ "Challenge your professors, even when you agree with them." -Herr Iosity

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/28/08 - 01:20 PM:	#4
Cowardice implies inability to perform actions that you believe to be right when deterred by fear. I would never want to live in a world full of cowards, and given the choice I would not save a coward from death. Cowards are trash.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 04/28/08 - 01:22 PM:	#5
Lex wrote: Cowardice implies inability to perform actions that you believe to be right when deterred by fear. I would never want to live in a world full of cowards, and given the choice I would not save a coward from death. Cowards are trash. Apparently, GWB is counting on you being in the minority.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 04/28/08 - 11:27 PM:	#6
One can pointlessly face danger so one can be or seem tough or brave. But that's not generally what is meant by heroism. Similarly, choosing not to face danger when facing the danger is more harmful than not is generally not what is meant by cowardice. I think cowardice generally refers to people who make harmful decisions out of fear. Heroes are generally people like firefighters who overcome their natural fear of fire when they can see it is worth the risk. Of course, we are more prone to use the word heroism when we feel the brave decision is especially compassionate. We are more prone to use the word cowardice when the fearful decision is especially selfish. Anyway, regarding my own personal values, I generally prefer to stay alive. Of course, I would choose to die or risk dying if doing it would have results that I want more than choosing to live. For example, if I saw an innocent 3-year-old girl playing in the street about to be hit by a car, and for the sake of simplicity let's say I know that either I have to let her die or kill myself to save her, of course I would choose to save her. Who wouldn't?
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 04/28/08 - 11:31 PM:	#7
One can pointlessly face danger so one can be or seem tough or brave. But that's not generally what is meant by heroism. Similarly, choosing not to face danger when facing the danger is more harmful than not is generally not what is meant by cowardice. I think cowardice generally refers to people who make harmful decisions out of fear. Heroes are generally people like firefighters who overcome their natural fear of fire when they can see it is worth the risk. Of course, we are more prone to use the word heroism when we feel the brave decision is especially compassionate. We are more prone to use the word cowardice when the fearful decision is especially selfish. Anyway, regarding my own personal values, I generally prefer to stay alive. Of course, I would choose to die or risk dying if doing it would have results that I want more than choosing to live. For example, if I saw an innocent 3-year-old girl playing in the street about to be hit by a car, and for the sake of simplicity let's say I know that either I have to let her die or kill myself to save her, of course I would choose to save her. Who wouldn't?
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/29/08 - 02:49 AM:	#8
I would need the terms rigidly defined for me. I would avoid damage to my person whenever possible. I would not put myself in harms way, or put my life in danger. Though there are things I would die for. I wouldn't kill someone to save my own life, unless I really didn't like them. I would not save myself at the cost of other people's lives. I would risk my life to save someone, though I wouldn't trade it. Although being a hero or a coward is the farthist thing from my mind when thinking about this. For me it's about weighing moral obligations with self-preservation. I would try to take the option that resulted in the best over-all outcome. Supposing I died in the process or not. We all die someday anyway.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/29/08 - 01:48 PM:	#9
Hey Worset, let's get something straight. There is you, a product of your brain, and your body (which includes the brain). To be fair, you should only speak for yourself. Your body is an organism and has a say about its own welfare that may be impacted by your decision on whether to be a coward or hero. Frankly, your body doesn't give a damn about what you think. Therefore, you have no right to die or endanger your body for anything. Your body would object to that. Since, being a hero implies putting your body at risk, you must resign to being a coward if you are ever caught in a situation. You have no right to donate a kidney or blood even. They are not yours to give.

iSerpent.
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2008
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/07/08 - 12:59 PM:	#10
I think there is a certain... well, how do I put this; I think that, there are times to be a coward, and there are times to be a hero. It really depends on the person. Of course, you wouldn't want to be too reckless... I understand that everyone dies, but you've really got to consider what it is you're willing to die for, and if it will make you a "hero". But, you also don't want to be too cowardice... because even though, yes, you will stay alive longer, but, you really won't get to experience life. So... that's just my opinion on it.
_____________________ \|. Sincerely; Angel in Jeans .\|

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/08/08 - 01:40 PM:	#11
iSerpent. wrote: I think there is a certain... well, how do I put this; I think that, there are times to be a coward, and there are times to be a hero. It really depends on the person. Of course, you wouldn't want to be too reckless... I understand that everyone dies, but you've really got to consider what it is you're willing to die for, and if it will make you a "hero". But, you also don't want to be too cowardice... because even though, yes, you will stay alive longer, but, you really won't get to experience life. So... that's just my opinion on it. I have to agree. The Greeks described four great Virtues, one of which is moderation. Moderation (sophrosune) here means the ability to choose appropriateness for the context. Or, in other words, there are times to be a coward and there are times to be a hero, and it takes a man of great virtue and intellect to know which times necessitate which course of action. As they say, "live to fight another day". This is a recurring theme throughout literature, no doubt: the hero fails and chooses not to die before being able to make his greatest impact, so he chooses the right situation to act courageously, as the "hero", bringing about more change than he could have when some would have called him a "coward".
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 05/08/08 - 03:03 PM:	#12
There is a difference between courage and stupidity, and a difference between courage and fearlessness. Its not to be confused with acting tough or bullying others either. Cowardice is giving into fear, and courage is overcoming fear. Terms have become wishy washy over time and need to be dusted off. That said, cowardice is trash.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

General Grim
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/08/08 - 05:09 PM:	#13
While living as a coward seems a more logical answer, dying a hero gives you more of a sense of accomplishment; something humanbeings craves more than life. I always believed that there is no point of living in fear because it is hardly living at all.

Epilogas
Floating Dust

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Location: Lithuania
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 220

Posted 05/08/08 - 05:50 PM:	#14
cangiz wrote: Is it better to be a Live Coward or a Dead Hero? Live coward. What's the point of being dead? One has to have courage to run away and overcome fear of being labeled a coward. Anyway, courage is needed in situations of mortal risk, not mortal certainty.

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 05/08/08 - 07:31 PM:	#15
General Grim: While living as a coward seems a more logical answer, dying a hero gives you more of a sense of accomplishment; something humanbeings craves more than life. I always believed that there is no point of living in fear because it is hardly living at all. Yiming: Hey General, the only thing that is real is the body, that can get hurt, and not you, who is needs to be a hero. If there is a conflict of interest between you and the body, the ethical thing for you to do is stuff it. Do you think it is ethical for me to put you at risk just so I can be a hero?

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 05/09/08 - 06:39 AM:	#16
rabeldin wrote: Lex wrote: Cowardice implies inability to perform actions that you believe to be right when deterred by fear. I would never want to live in a world full of cowards, and given the choice I would not save a coward from death. Cowards are trash. Apparently, GWB is counting on you being in the minority. Assuming that by GWB you mean George W Bush (sorry, my best guess), I would have to agree that every governmental system and in fact society is based on inaction. More specifically, inaction prompted by self-preservation, alleviated to social norm. It's kind of scary: nobody cares about you, you don't care about anyone else. Maybe it's those films these days (cause or consequence? go figure), where the character's family, best friend, dog, cat, and pet fish die within 24 hours but it's "happy end" and he is joking at the end of the film with his girlfriend (survived/new one). Also if you ask me all those horror movies with characters running away from a knife-wielding madman are a sign of poor mental health. I mean seriously are you going to whimper under your bed while your family/friends are being slaughtered? Fun world.

General Grim
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/09/08 - 12:36 PM:	#17
yiming wrote: General Grim: While living as a coward seems a more logical answer, dying a hero gives you more of a sense of accomplishment; something humanbeings craves more than life. I always believed that there is no point of living in fear because it is hardly living at all. Yiming: Hey General, the only thing that is real is the body, that can get hurt, and not you, who is needs to be a hero. If there is a conflict of interest between you and the body, the ethical thing for you to do is stuff it. Do you think it is ethical for me to put you at risk just so I can be a hero? On that line of thinking you could also say this; I have developed a hate for someone and wish them dead, and ethically, as you say, I should quench that blood thirst. Now would it be ethical for me to murder someone? So I dont think your arguement could work in all cases. I do, however, think your argument is interesting. Putting someone at risk is not being hereoic it seems kind of stupid. Being a hero, as I think of it, would be seeing someone in trouble and working up the corage to save their life. Life is satisfied by life. Heros also don't always live in peril, bring hope or life to the next generation as life intends, is being a hero.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/10/08 - 06:48 AM:	#18
We all die. In fact, our species will someday become extinct. Our genetic lines that we cling to as justification for staying alive will eventually amount to nil. Therefore, the question of whether it is better to be a live coward or a dead hero is short-sighted. In the long run, it is a question of being a dead hero, or a dead coward. If I am to die [which I am] I personally prefer to die on my feet than die on my knees. I would prefer to be brave and alive, but if bravery necessitates that I not see 30, that I not have children, so be it. I will have lived a more filling life than if I lived to be a 150 year old coward. The life of a coward is no life at all.
_____________________ It is what it is.

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/10/08 - 07:08 AM:	#19
Absolutely Relative wrote: We all die. In fact, our species will someday become extinct. Our genetic lines that we cling to as justification for staying alive will eventually amount to nil. True; but that does not diminish the importance of the dichotomy to those living in the here-and-now. Focusing on a reality tens of thousands of years from now means little to those dealing with problems in the present, and how to act bravely and cowardly in the right situations.
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/10/08 - 07:19 AM:	#20
I cannot think of a single instance where cowardice is the 'right' choice. Not all situations call for bravery unto death. Crossing the street cautiously isn't cowardice, it's intelligent.
_____________________ It is what it is.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/10/08 - 02:10 PM:	#21
Isn't there a poem line that goes something like: "Sometimes a hero is just some coward who was afraid to say no?" e.e. cummings or Carl Sandburg perhaps? Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 697

Posted 05/10/08 - 07:49 PM:	#22
General Grim wrote: While living as a coward seems a more logical answer, dying a hero gives you more of a sense of accomplishment Shame to be dead though if you have accomplished being a hero, you don't get to enjoy any of the benifits or rewards. Truth is all you have accomplished is death. Edited by SIR2U on 05/11/08 - 06:08 PM
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/10/08 - 09:07 PM:	#23
The greatest reward for courage is not extrinsic, it is intrinsic. A firefighter who runs into a burning building time and again isn't doing it for the money. The money is worthless if he dies and the isn't that great to begin with. He does it because he knows that someone has to, that it is the right thing, the Honorable thing to do. He can go home at the end of his shift knowing that he has done his duty. He can die, knowing that he has lived with Honor and done his duty.
_____________________ It is what it is.

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 114

Posted 05/11/08 - 12:42 AM:	#24
There was a very good article about this subject in the magazine Philosophy NOW, Jan/Feb 2008. The article was entitled “The Departed” a recent film by Martin Scorsese which was used to illustrates Nietzsche's theory of will to power. The article discusses Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that everything living seeks to express its strength, will to power. Nietzsche famously announced the death of God, by which he implied in our scientific post-enlightenment age moral certainty has dropped away leaving us pursuing hedonism. There is a lack of subtlety in supposing that God must be the source of moral value. Moral nihilism is not the only possible response to the death of God. Nietzsche refers to the ‘overman’ who has responsibility to rekindle a noble set of values. Nietzsche sees that truth is grounded in our will to power and this involves a notion of obedience, self-discipline and creativity. In a world of will to power it is self betraying to suppose anything goes because that’s only a cynical response to the absence of God and objective truth. Moral truth may be an illusion, but we are moral beings when we act in accordance with our natures. Only the stronger type of person is capable of that.. The rest are ‘herd’ for whom the truth is merely a comfort because they lack the strength of will to be truly moral and self creative. And in this they stand in danger of being led astray by ignoble nihilists. Another film that highlighted the question of moral courage was “High Noon” starring Gary Cooper. There is something in human nature that abhors cowardice, it is not a question of living or dying but a particular way of living. We cannot all be heros or possessed with strong wills but we should try with all effort never to give into cowardice or "to look the other way." Another very good book on this subject is “Pushkin’s Button” which relates the story of the Russian poet Aleksandr Pushkin and his duel over the infidelity of his wife in 1837. A tragic death, but Pushkin met the challenge although he probably knew he could not win because his opponent was a military man, a marksman. But the fact that Pushkin had the fortitude to face it displays amazing courage.

Epilogas
Floating Dust

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Location: Lithuania
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 220

Posted 05/11/08 - 06:16 AM:	#25
Cafe Rob wrote: Nietzsche sees that truth is grounded in our will to power and this involves a notion of obedience, self-discipline and creativity. In a world of will to power it is self betraying to suppose anything goes because that’s only a cynical response to the absence of God and objective truth. There's no truth for Nietzsche. No, anything goes, but some things that goes are more noble then others. Cafe Rob wrote: There is something in human nature that abhors cowardice, it is not a question of living or dying but a particular way of living. We cannot all be heros or possessed with strong wills but we should try with all effort never to give into cowardice or "to look the other way." Well, dying is not exactly looking THE way. Cafe Rob wrote: Another very good book on this subject is “Pushkin’s Button” which relates the story of the Russian poet Aleksandr Pushkin and his duel over the infidelity of his wife in 1837. A tragic death, but Pushkin met the challenge although he probably knew he could not win because his opponent was a military man, a marksman. But the fact that Pushkin had the fortitude to face it displays amazing courage. It displays amazing stupidity, aswell.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.