C-S defines courage as “the capacity to overcome fear. He describes courage as being “the most universally admired” (pg 44) virtues, and I agree.
From young ages we are told to stand up for ourselves and be brave. We are given heroes to look up to like Superman and Captain America who face their fears and fight for the protection of human kind. Even at older ages we look up to heroes. Firefighters and police officers that keep us safe are our heroes now.
Courage could also be defined not only as facing one’s fears, but also as self-sacrificing to save others. All of those we consider heroes today would risk their lives to save those around them. It is kind of part of the job description. You want to be a hero? You have to be willing to risk your life for others. This is basically what C-S is saying on page 47: “That which we respect about courage, then, and which has its culmination in self-sacrifice is first of all the acceptance or incurring rick without selfish motivation.” You have to go out of your comfort zone to do something for someone else without your actions benefiting you.
“Courage presupposes fear and the burden of courage is simply to stand up to it... Fear is both a necessary and a sufficient element in courage, and it doesn’t matter whether fear is justified or illegitimate, reasonable or unreasonable… No other virtue is more resistant to intellectualism.” (55) The smartest person in the world can have a fear and no way to overcome it through science or reason. Thinking about heights and analyzing them isn’t going to help someone climb a mountain or ride a roller coaster. Perhaps for some people reasoning through a situation would be enough, but for everyone else who can’t reason through their fears, there is courage. When science and beliefs aren’t enough to over come fears, we have courage. Jankelevitch says, “Courage is not knowledge but a decision, not an opinion but an act.” (51)
“The courage to persist and endure, to live and to die, to hold out, fight, resist, persevere.” (52) When we are struggling, it is our courage that keeps us going. It is our courage that helps us strive to keep waking up and keep moving forward despite the difficulties that we know are waiting ahead.
As has come to be a theme in this book, C-S related courage to the other virtues. He described courage as a precondition for other virtues, just as he said about prudence. “All virtue is a form of courage, and all virtue is a form of prudence.” (pg 50). C-S quotes Alain and says that because of the link between courage and prudence as preconditions that being called a coward is the worst kind of insult because “without courage, we cannot hold out against the worst in ourselves or in others.” (pg. 50)
Questions: - Do you see being a coward as the worst insult? - Do you agree with C-S that courage is a virtue that is universally admired, or Voltaire (pg. 45) that courage is a quality to be shared? - C-S poses a good question at the beginning of the chapter about courage in wrongdoers: “is that kind of courage –courage to do evil, courage in doing evil—still courage?” (45) Do you think that courage in doing evil is still courage? - C-S believes that courage is only in the present. “The fact that we once had courage does not prove that we will have it again or even that we have it now. Yet past action is positive indication, quite literally, an encouraging sign.” (53) Do you agree that past courageous acts are encouraging to future acts?
"Of all the virtues, courage is no doubt the most universally admired." (44) Quite true--most likely because the virtue of courage has the most evident outward display. We recognize someone with courage because their out of the ordinary actions directly mirror their inner virtue.
Perhaps this "virtue" is most evident because it is not, in fact a virtue, as Voltaire argues, but simply a quality that we all may possess from time to time. Personally, I do not believe that courage is really an acquired virtue to work at. I seem to agree with C-S, that courage surfaces only in the present and at each bend in the road. We do not work at courage, but rather "past action is.. an encouraging sign." (53) We may continue to be courageous because we proved to ourselves that we could be courageous once. We all have the opportunity to be courageous at each fearful opportunity we face. We can have courage and face our fears and do what may seem impossible, or we can deny the quality of courage deep within us and choose to take the easy way out.
"It [courage] is the ability to confront, master, and overcome fear" (51). I agree with Sponville that courage exists mainly in the present. If one is terrified of roller coasters, then riding the coaster is the fear. However, just saying "roller coaster" or seeing one also may cause fear. As Sponville points out, this fear can be imagined or real, but the courage overcoming both is equally challenging. There are no real fears with roller-coasters, just like there is a very small chance one would actually fall from a 20-story building, but the fear of heights still exists. Although the fearful thought of the roller-coaster is concerned with a future event, one uses courage to dsmiss the present thought. When one is driving to the amusement park, it takes courage to actually get in line for the roller coaster and not fill up one's day at the snack bar. Every step in the waiting line leading up to the roller coaster is an individual battle that exists purely in the present against every negative thought about the future situation. This is why Sponville writes, "It [courage] can continue only if it is taken up again and again in a ceaseless perpetuation of effort" (53).
However, every step in the line towards the roller coaster may allow one to say to onself, "I have been able to get in line, this was my first battle, so the second one, getting on the roller coaster, may not be so bad." It is this logical patttern of thinking that makes me believe that Sponville is right in saying that past acts of courage serve as the fuel for the next act. Indeed, children develop better handwriting by looking at and remembering their past mistakes and their past successes. Then, they build on the successes to form better letters of the alphabet. Virtues, and every other human activity, tend to be developed through this similar building process.
"'Courage is not a virtue,' says Voltaire, 'but a quality shared by blackguards and great men alike"' (45). This is an intriguing point to me because I suppose depending on who's point of view, an act of good or evil could be viewed as "courageous." In reality, this is not the virtue courage, rather just a disillusioned concept, perhaps. An evil act, in reality, cannot truly be considered courageous and instead is selfish.
"[. . .][C]ourage, a psychological trait to begin with, becomes a virtue only when it serves others, either directly or else indirectly by serving a general cause that itself serves other people" (48). An act cannot really be considered courageous if it merely results in self-benefit.
Comte-Sponville also talks about how courage is a virtue of the present because even though one may have shown courage in the past does not necessarily mean they will do the same in the future.
Is courage a virtue? I don't know. It is an admirable quality, yes, but it seems wrong to admit it as a virtue, considering that it is possible to be courageous while at the same time completely lacking in virtue. I hate to make every historical example go back to Hitler, but Hitler won an Iron Cross, which was awarded for courage, in World War I. I think I read that it turns out he didn't deserve it, but it's not like it's impossible that he did. So he could really evil and really brave at the same time. Actually, courage and evil can go hand in hand; if someone is really brave and really evil, the combination of the two can be quite effective.
Courage is defined as the ability to overcome fear. Does that count as a vritue? Take me as an example. I have a very mild phobia of heights (so mild as to probably not count as a phobia). I don't start shaking at the very idea of them, but running around on a bunch of narrow ropes forty feet above the ground isn't my favorite thing. But I made myself do it anyway, because there were like forty people there and I didn't want to seem a coward.
Now, if I hadn't overcome my fear, would anything, morally, change? If I'd slunk down the ladder, would I be a worse person? I don't think so. Would I have hurt anyone else? Not really, although I guess my climbing partner might have been a little annoyed. If I had swung through the ropes like a monkey up a tree, would have made me a better person? Again, not really.
On the other hand, I do think Comte-Sponville is right about courage being the most admired virtue. it is hard not to admire brave people. But I think there can be as much virtue in a quiet, virtuous life as there is in saving an orphanage full of small children once. Courage is the most spectacular virtue, but I don't think it is the most important.
Ellen stated “Thinking about heights and analyzing them isn’t going to help someone climb a mountain or ride a roller coaster”. While a great illustration to make her point, I would argue that someone who rides roller coasters or is capable of merely facing their fears would not be considered courageous as explained by C-S. In my opinion, courage is much more than partaking in life threatening or daring activities. It is the motive behind these activities. What drives the person to risk their life is what makes them courageous. Someone who climbs a story high tree for the rush or sake of accomplishment is not courageous, but the individual that climbs that tree to rescue a child trapped in it is courageous. It is the sacrifice that makes one courageous, not merely the act itself. Past courageous acts are clearly inspiring new courageous acts. If you are hailed as a hero for some great deed, you become a mini celebrity. It should not be one’s fifteen minutes of fame that motivate you to do something selfless. It is my opinion that because it is the motivation that makes a person courageous, past courageous acts should not inspire new ones. You must be willing to sacrifice yourself out of the necessity of the moment and not think through what others have done and how it can benefit you, or you are not acting courageously.
Holly's point that it is the motive behind a "courageous" activity is really what makes the action "courageous" or not cleared a lot up for me. Instead of simply looking at the action, we must look at the motives and beliefs surrounding the action.
I think one of the best illustrations of this concept is the description of the two terrorists that Comte-Sponville describes on pages 45-46. One terrorist could do something rather daring, like blowing up a plane, from the ground and we certainly would not view him as courageous. We would despise him and think him a coward. However, another terrorist might carry out his "daring" operation from inside the plane itself, giving himself the same fate as the victims of his terrorism. While we would certainly still despise this person, we would have to say that he had more courage than the one who carried out his operation from the ground. I think this is where the idea of motive comes in. The terrorist on the plane obviously had to think that this (horrendous) act was the "right" thing to do, and he believed in it enough that he was willing to give his life for it. "...the heroic terrorist, by reason of his self-sacrifice, at least gives evidence of his sincerity and, perhaps, of the selflessness of his motives" (Comte-Sponville, 46). While the terrorist on the ground may feel as strongly, his action does not show that same sincerity, because he is not directly giving up his life for his cause. Therefore, due to motives, the terrorist on the plane (while committing a terrible, heinous, immoral act) seems to have shown courage, while the terrorist on the ground did not.
Comte-Sponville also points out the importance of the beliefs of the terrorist on the plane, saying that "whatever sort of respect (certainly mixed) we might have for him [the terrorist on the plane] would diminish, indeed might vanish, if we learned, in reading his diary, for example, that his infamous act had been performed in the conviction that he would stand to gain--as is the case with a religious fanatic--much more than he would lose, namely, eternal happiness in the afterlife" (Comte-Sponville, 46). Therefore, Comte-Sponville seems to suggest we must go a little further than just looking at motives, and look at the beliefs of the person committing the act to determine whether we are dealing with real, "courage" or not.
Dan, I especially enjoyed your post; I felt much the same way as I read Comte-Sponville’s chapter on courage. This is the first time that I’ve questioned the inclusion of a virtue. I feel that, in order for a quality to be truly virtuous, it must be the best quality to use in every situation. Take temperance, for example. Is there ever a situation in which it doesn’t pay to be temperate? If happiness stems from temperance, and to be temperate means to be moderate when indulging in sensual pleasures, it thus would never make since to refrain too much or to overindulge in said pleasures. I don’t feel that this is the case with courage.
Being courageous is certainly admirable. As Ellen and Comte-Sponville both emphasized, it is the most universally admired quality. From the books that we read to the stories we see on the news, courage is always celebrated in those who display it, and it always triumphs over cowardice. Just because it is so widely esteemed, however, does not necessarily make it virtuous. To go back to my original point, I feel that the more virtuous option should be taken in all scenarios—but this cannot be said of courage. Take, for example, an individual who is attacked on the street (page 47). Without question, the most courageous thing to do would be to fight the attacker. Is this, however, the BEST thing to do? While pleading for one’s life or simply doing nothing are both forms of cowardice, they could very easily be the wisest choices to make. Fighting with an attacker could anger them, prompting them to harm or to kill you. Comte-Sponville also provides the example of a woman being raped (page 47). If you hear her screaming, the courageous thing to do would be to help. But the wise thing to do might be to stand back and call the police; if you interfered, you could be hurt. While Kant defends courage by saying that self-love is the root of all evil (page 47), I must disagree. One can only help and love others if they are first concerned with helping and loving themselves.
I thus feel that prudence, the precursor to all virtues, prevents courage from being entirely virtuous. We cannot be courageous in all situations if we are prudent; we must first weigh our options, always keeping our well-being in mind. I agree with Voltaire when he says, “Courage is not a virtue, but a quality shared by blackguards and great men alike. (page 45)” An excellence, sure; and an especially admirable excellence at that. But while courage might be significant in that it represents the mastery of our fears and in itself is altruistic, I just can’t consider it to be a true virtue.
I’m interested in C-S’s example of the cowardly terrorist who blows up the plane from the ground and the courageous suicide-bomber terrorist who goes down with the plane. I can’t help but have a little sympathy with the suicide-bomber and have none at all with the cowardly terrorist. Like C-S talks about, psychologically you want to have some sympathy for the suicide bomber because if he is willing to die for his beliefs, than it seems like at least he is sincere. If he truly believes in what he’s doing to that extent, then it does seem like he cannot be held culpable in the same way that the other can be. Now C-S kind of reasons himself out of this idea a little later—he says, well the suicide bomber is still doing it for selfish, self-serving reasons in the end—he expects to have a better reward for all eternity in the afterlife. Now, this may be part of the reason, but I still think this shows a level of commitment very different from the cowardly terrorist. It reminds me of an opposite sort of case—a captain going down with the ship—or at least staying on if even one person is still on the boat. To me, there is something admirable about this idea, even if it is a bit stupid. There is especially something admirable about it if there is still someone on the ship. Or, another example from Hollywood. In Black Hawk Down, some soldiers risk their lives (I think they do end up dying) in order to get the bodies of some of the other soldiers. Now, this has no *prudent* justification. They will also possibly get killed—they know for certain that their comrades are dead. And yet I admire them for not leaving anyone behind—dead or alive. There is something courageous and lovely in that act and yet it is completely useless from a utilitarian standpoint. Is this act a virtue? Dying for a dead body? Is that merely a gesture with no value?
So, I read through a lot of the above posts and saw everybody hatin' on Courage, saying that it isnt a virtue. Now, normally, I'd have tried to post a barely on topic post that somehow related back to the topic (I had been thinking about equating courage to metaphysical adrenaline, wherein its always there, ready to start pumping and get you in action, but whether or not someone else is made to take notice of it is what plays the main factor), however, I think this time I will simply answer some questions that ellen posted. Being called a coward – probably not the worst of insults. I tend to have habit to speak more insultingly than that on a regular basis, though, perhaps, if being courageous is all you’ve got going for you, it would then be the worst of insults. If that’s not the case, then I feel as if the insult really won’t smolder too long, as sometimes, it is justifiable, if not intelligent to be a “coward” and back down or run away from something. In an all too literal but semi-comical (semi, because it really isn’t that funny) example, I am, 9x out of 10, going to run away from a 200lb MMA fighter that wants to hurt me, regardless of how courageous I may or may not be on a regular basis. Can I simply agree with both Voltaire and C-S in that it is both shared and universally admired? Or is that making me a coward, backing down from a decision… huehuehue.
John raises a good point in the above post that "if being courageous is all you've got going for you, it would then be the worst of insults." I agree. Since, as C-S notes, courage is an in-the-moment kind of virtue, if that is all a person is concerned about and all he or she is worried about being, then that would be terribly insulting. To have no other "all-the-time" virtues would just be sad.
I agree with both C-S and Voltaire in that courage should both be admired and shared. If we admire courage, then, in effect, we should naturally be encouraged to emulate courageousness and attempt to share it with the world.
In taking a somewhat postmodernist standing, I suppose courage can be virtuous in spite of the fact that the act presupposing the courage is evil. If one sincerely thinks there is some validity in his or her actions, even if the rest of us think the actions are evil, such as jihad, would the jihadist not still be more courageous for committing an action, evil though it is, and dying for a cause than the terrorist who is unwilling to give up his life? Although, if the jihadist is only performing this suicidal act as a means to gain heavenly glory, then perhaps it isn't so courageous after all.
As for the last question, past courage certainly encourages future courage, while the only courage that actually exists is courage in the moment.
I think you all are forgetting what we talked about in class. According to C-S there are TWO different types of courage. One that is virtuous and one that isn't. Thus, braving a roller coaster might not be virtuous but it is definitely courageous.
Courage is one of the most important virtues because without it one cannot consistently practice the other virtues. It is easy to practice them intermittently, but to practice them unswervingly requires courage. Most of the time virtues are not easy to live by. If they were, then they would not be celebrated as something special. But to practice most of the virtues, a degree of courage or fortitude is required. So, I would say that without courage, none of the other virtues would get any meaningful action. I think that courage is a unique virtue in that it is the most difficult to find a happy medium with. In most of the other virtues, there is not really a practical danger in being in excess of them. Nobody was ever condemned for being too generous, too prudent, or too fidelious (fidelity). However, in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle stresses the importance of finding the middle ground of courage. It is sometimes difficult to be courageous enough to avoid cowardice, but not be goaded into the other extreme, which is recklessness. For example, it could be argued that Sir Thomas More bordered on recklessness when he got Henry VIII so mad when he wouldn’t take the oath. In response to the question that Ellen posted, I don’t think being called a coward is the worst insult (I have heard some “your mom” jokes that would put being called a coward to shame.) In fact, I googled “worst insult in the world” and coward was not on the list. People need to have a self-knowledge of who they are. If somebody is truly brave, and they know that they are really courageous, then it should not bother them if somebody calls them a coward. The fact that they know their own courage should be enough (unless the person calling them a coward is the girl they like. In that case, they might have to do something to prove their courage.). I also think that courage in the past is a good indication of courage in the future. How you practice is how you play, so if you build a foundation of acting courageously then you are probably going to act that way in the future. JJ Ruwe
C-S defines courage as “the capacity to overcome fear. He describes courage as being “the most universally admired” (pg 44) virtues, and I agree.
ReplyDeleteFrom young ages we are told to stand up for ourselves and be brave. We are given heroes to look up to like Superman and Captain America who face their fears and fight for the protection of human kind. Even at older ages we look up to heroes. Firefighters and police officers that keep us safe are our heroes now.
Courage could also be defined not only as facing one’s fears, but also as self-sacrificing to save others. All of those we consider heroes today would risk their lives to save those around them. It is kind of part of the job description. You want to be a hero? You have to be willing to risk your life for others. This is basically what C-S is saying on page 47: “That which we respect about courage, then, and which has its culmination in self-sacrifice is first of all the acceptance or incurring rick without selfish motivation.” You have to go out of your comfort zone to do something for someone else without your actions benefiting you.
“Courage presupposes fear and the burden of courage is simply to stand up to it... Fear is both a necessary and a sufficient element in courage, and it doesn’t matter whether fear is justified or illegitimate, reasonable or unreasonable… No other virtue is more resistant to intellectualism.” (55) The smartest person in the world can have a fear and no way to overcome it through science or reason. Thinking about heights and analyzing them isn’t going to help someone climb a mountain or ride a roller coaster. Perhaps for some people reasoning through a situation would be enough, but for everyone else who can’t reason through their fears, there is courage. When science and beliefs aren’t enough to over come fears, we have courage. Jankelevitch says, “Courage is not knowledge but a decision, not an opinion but an act.” (51)
“The courage to persist and endure, to live and to die, to hold out, fight, resist, persevere.” (52) When we are struggling, it is our courage that keeps us going. It is our courage that helps us strive to keep waking up and keep moving forward despite the difficulties that we know are waiting ahead.
As has come to be a theme in this book, C-S related courage to the other virtues. He described courage as a precondition for other virtues, just as he said about prudence. “All virtue is a form of courage, and all virtue is a form of prudence.” (pg 50). C-S quotes Alain and says that because of the link between courage and prudence as preconditions that being called a coward is the worst kind of insult because “without courage, we cannot hold out against the worst in ourselves or in others.” (pg. 50)
Questions:
- Do you see being a coward as the worst insult?
- Do you agree with C-S that courage is a virtue that is universally admired, or Voltaire (pg. 45) that courage is a quality to be shared?
- C-S poses a good question at the beginning of the chapter about courage in wrongdoers: “is that kind of courage –courage to do evil, courage in doing evil—still courage?” (45) Do you think that courage in doing evil is still courage?
- C-S believes that courage is only in the present. “The fact that we once had courage does not prove that we will have it again or even that we have it now. Yet past action is positive indication, quite literally, an encouraging sign.” (53) Do you agree that past courageous acts are encouraging to future acts?
"Of all the virtues, courage is no doubt the most universally admired." (44) Quite true--most likely because the virtue of courage has the most evident outward display. We recognize someone with courage because their out of the ordinary actions directly mirror their inner virtue.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this "virtue" is most evident because it is not, in fact a virtue, as Voltaire argues, but simply a quality that we all may possess from time to time. Personally, I do not believe that courage is really an acquired virtue to work at. I seem to agree with C-S, that courage surfaces only in the present and at each bend in the road. We do not work at courage, but rather "past action is.. an encouraging sign." (53) We may continue to be courageous because we proved to ourselves that we could be courageous once. We all have the opportunity to be courageous at each fearful opportunity we face. We can have courage and face our fears and do what may seem impossible, or we can deny the quality of courage deep within us and choose to take the easy way out.
"It [courage] is the ability to confront, master, and overcome fear" (51). I agree with Sponville that courage exists mainly in the present. If one is terrified of roller coasters, then riding the coaster is the fear. However, just saying "roller coaster" or seeing one also may cause fear. As Sponville points out, this fear can be imagined or real, but the courage overcoming both is equally challenging. There are no real fears with roller-coasters, just like there is a very small chance one would actually fall from a 20-story building, but the fear of heights still exists. Although the fearful thought of the roller-coaster is concerned with a future event, one uses courage to dsmiss the present thought. When one is driving to the amusement park, it takes courage to actually get in line for the roller coaster and not fill up one's day at the snack bar. Every step in the waiting line leading up to the roller coaster is an individual battle that exists purely in the present against every negative thought about the future situation. This is why Sponville writes, "It [courage] can continue only if it is taken up again and again in a ceaseless perpetuation of effort" (53).
ReplyDeleteHowever, every step in the line towards the roller coaster may allow one to say to onself, "I have been able to get in line, this was my first battle, so the second one, getting on the roller coaster, may not be so bad." It is this logical patttern of thinking that makes me believe that Sponville is right in saying that past acts of courage serve as the fuel for the next act. Indeed, children develop better handwriting by looking at and remembering their past mistakes and their past successes. Then, they build on the successes to form better letters of the alphabet. Virtues, and every other human activity, tend to be developed through this similar building process.
"'Courage is not a virtue,' says Voltaire, 'but a quality shared by blackguards and great men alike"' (45). This is an intriguing point to me because I suppose depending on who's point of view, an act of good or evil could be viewed as "courageous." In reality, this is not the virtue courage, rather just a disillusioned concept, perhaps. An evil act, in reality, cannot truly be considered courageous and instead is selfish.
ReplyDelete"[. . .][C]ourage, a psychological trait to begin with, becomes a virtue only when it serves others, either directly or else indirectly by serving a general cause that itself serves other people" (48). An act cannot really be considered courageous if it merely results in self-benefit.
Comte-Sponville also talks about how courage is a virtue of the present because even though one may have shown courage in the past does not necessarily mean they will do the same in the future.
Is courage a virtue? I don't know. It is an admirable quality, yes, but it seems wrong to admit it as a virtue, considering that it is possible to be courageous while at the same time completely lacking in virtue. I hate to make every historical example go back to Hitler, but Hitler won an Iron Cross, which was awarded for courage, in World War I. I think I read that it turns out he didn't deserve it, but it's not like it's impossible that he did. So he could really evil and really brave at the same time. Actually, courage and evil can go hand in hand; if someone is really brave and really evil, the combination of the two can be quite effective.
ReplyDeleteCourage is defined as the ability to overcome fear. Does that count as a vritue? Take me as an example. I have a very mild phobia of heights (so mild as to probably not count as a phobia). I don't start shaking at the very idea of them, but running around on a bunch of narrow ropes forty feet above the ground isn't my favorite thing. But I made myself do it anyway, because there were like forty people there and I didn't want to seem a coward.
Now, if I hadn't overcome my fear, would anything, morally, change? If I'd slunk down the ladder, would I be a worse person? I don't think so. Would I have hurt anyone else? Not really, although I guess my climbing partner might have been a little annoyed. If I had swung through the ropes like a monkey up a tree, would have made me a better person? Again, not really.
On the other hand, I do think Comte-Sponville is right about courage being the most admired virtue. it is hard not to admire brave people. But I think there can be as much virtue in a quiet, virtuous life as there is in saving an orphanage full of small children once. Courage is the most spectacular virtue, but I don't think it is the most important.
Ellen stated “Thinking about heights and analyzing them isn’t going to help someone climb a mountain or ride a roller coaster”. While a great illustration to make her point, I would argue that someone who rides roller coasters or is capable of merely facing their fears would not be considered courageous as explained by C-S. In my opinion, courage is much more than partaking in life threatening or daring activities. It is the motive behind these activities. What drives the person to risk their life is what makes them courageous. Someone who climbs a story high tree for the rush or sake of accomplishment is not courageous, but the individual that climbs that tree to rescue a child trapped in it is courageous. It is the sacrifice that makes one courageous, not merely the act itself.
ReplyDeletePast courageous acts are clearly inspiring new courageous acts. If you are hailed as a hero for some great deed, you become a mini celebrity. It should not be one’s fifteen minutes of fame that motivate you to do something selfless. It is my opinion that because it is the motivation that makes a person courageous, past courageous acts should not inspire new ones. You must be willing to sacrifice yourself out of the necessity of the moment and not think through what others have done and how it can benefit you, or you are not acting courageously.
Holly's point that it is the motive behind a "courageous" activity is really what makes the action "courageous" or not cleared a lot up for me. Instead of simply looking at the action, we must look at the motives and beliefs surrounding the action.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the best illustrations of this concept is the description of the two terrorists that Comte-Sponville describes on pages 45-46. One terrorist could do something rather daring, like blowing up a plane, from the ground and we certainly would not view him as courageous. We would despise him and think him a coward. However, another terrorist might carry out his "daring" operation from inside the plane itself, giving himself the same fate as the victims of his terrorism. While we would certainly still despise this person, we would have to say that he had more courage than the one who carried out his operation from the ground. I think this is where the idea of motive comes in. The terrorist on the plane obviously had to think that this (horrendous) act was the "right" thing to do, and he believed in it enough that he was willing to give his life for it. "...the heroic terrorist, by reason of his self-sacrifice, at least gives evidence of his sincerity and, perhaps, of the selflessness of his motives" (Comte-Sponville, 46). While the terrorist on the ground may feel as strongly, his action does not show that same sincerity, because he is not directly giving up his life for his cause. Therefore, due to motives, the terrorist on the plane (while committing a terrible, heinous, immoral act) seems to have shown courage, while the terrorist on the ground did not.
Comte-Sponville also points out the importance of the beliefs of the terrorist on the plane, saying that "whatever sort of respect (certainly mixed) we might have for him [the terrorist on the plane] would diminish, indeed might vanish, if we learned, in reading his diary, for example, that his infamous act had been performed in the conviction that he would stand to gain--as is the case with a religious fanatic--much more than he would lose, namely, eternal happiness in the afterlife" (Comte-Sponville, 46). Therefore, Comte-Sponville seems to suggest we must go a little further than just looking at motives, and look at the beliefs of the person committing the act to determine whether we are dealing with real, "courage" or not.
Dan, I especially enjoyed your post; I felt much the same way as I read Comte-Sponville’s chapter on courage. This is the first time that I’ve questioned the inclusion of a virtue. I feel that, in order for a quality to be truly virtuous, it must be the best quality to use in every situation. Take temperance, for example. Is there ever a situation in which it doesn’t pay to be temperate? If happiness stems from temperance, and to be temperate means to be moderate when indulging in sensual pleasures, it thus would never make since to refrain too much or to overindulge in said pleasures. I don’t feel that this is the case with courage.
ReplyDeleteBeing courageous is certainly admirable. As Ellen and Comte-Sponville both emphasized, it is the most universally admired quality. From the books that we read to the stories we see on the news, courage is always celebrated in those who display it, and it always triumphs over cowardice. Just because it is so widely esteemed, however, does not necessarily make it virtuous. To go back to my original point, I feel that the more virtuous option should be taken in all scenarios—but this cannot be said of courage. Take, for example, an individual who is attacked on the street (page 47). Without question, the most courageous thing to do would be to fight the attacker. Is this, however, the BEST thing to do? While pleading for one’s life or simply doing nothing are both forms of cowardice, they could very easily be the wisest choices to make. Fighting with an attacker could anger them, prompting them to harm or to kill you. Comte-Sponville also provides the example of a woman being raped (page 47). If you hear her screaming, the courageous thing to do would be to help. But the wise thing to do might be to stand back and call the police; if you interfered, you could be hurt. While Kant defends courage by saying that self-love is the root of all evil (page 47), I must disagree. One can only help and love others if they are first concerned with helping and loving themselves.
I thus feel that prudence, the precursor to all virtues, prevents courage from being entirely virtuous. We cannot be courageous in all situations if we are prudent; we must first weigh our options, always keeping our well-being in mind. I agree with Voltaire when he says, “Courage is not a virtue, but a quality shared by blackguards and great men alike. (page 45)” An excellence, sure; and an especially admirable excellence at that. But while courage might be significant in that it represents the mastery of our fears and in itself is altruistic, I just can’t consider it to be a true virtue.
I’m interested in C-S’s example of the cowardly terrorist who blows up the plane from the ground and the courageous suicide-bomber terrorist who goes down with the plane. I can’t help but have a little sympathy with the suicide-bomber and have none at all with the cowardly terrorist. Like C-S talks about, psychologically you want to have some sympathy for the suicide bomber because if he is willing to die for his beliefs, than it seems like at least he is sincere. If he truly believes in what he’s doing to that extent, then it does seem like he cannot be held culpable in the same way that the other can be.
ReplyDeleteNow C-S kind of reasons himself out of this idea a little later—he says, well the suicide bomber is still doing it for selfish, self-serving reasons in the end—he expects to have a better reward for all eternity in the afterlife. Now, this may be part of the reason, but I still think this shows a level of commitment very different from the cowardly terrorist.
It reminds me of an opposite sort of case—a captain going down with the ship—or at least staying on if even one person is still on the boat. To me, there is something admirable about this idea, even if it is a bit stupid. There is especially something admirable about it if there is still someone on the ship. Or, another example from Hollywood. In Black Hawk Down, some soldiers risk their lives (I think they do end up dying) in order to get the bodies of some of the other soldiers. Now, this has no *prudent* justification. They will also possibly get killed—they know for certain that their comrades are dead. And yet I admire them for not leaving anyone behind—dead or alive. There is something courageous and lovely in that act and yet it is completely useless from a utilitarian standpoint. Is this act a virtue? Dying for a dead body? Is that merely a gesture with no value?
So, I read through a lot of the above posts and saw everybody hatin' on Courage, saying that it isnt a virtue. Now, normally, I'd have tried to post a barely on topic post that somehow related back to the topic (I had been thinking about equating courage to metaphysical adrenaline, wherein its always there, ready to start pumping and get you in action, but whether or not someone else is made to take notice of it is what plays the main factor), however, I think this time I will simply answer some questions that ellen posted. Being called a coward – probably not the worst of insults. I tend to have habit to speak more insultingly than that on a regular basis, though, perhaps, if being courageous is all you’ve got going for you, it would then be the worst of insults. If that’s not the case, then I feel as if the insult really won’t smolder too long, as sometimes, it is justifiable, if not intelligent to be a “coward” and back down or run away from something. In an all too literal but semi-comical (semi, because it really isn’t that funny) example, I am, 9x out of 10, going to run away from a 200lb MMA fighter that wants to hurt me, regardless of how courageous I may or may not be on a regular basis. Can I simply agree with both Voltaire and C-S in that it is both shared and universally admired? Or is that making me a coward, backing down from a decision… huehuehue.
ReplyDeleteJohn raises a good point in the above post that "if being courageous is all you've got going for you, it would then be the worst of insults." I agree. Since, as C-S notes, courage is an in-the-moment kind of virtue, if that is all a person is concerned about and all he or she is worried about being, then that would be terribly insulting. To have no other "all-the-time" virtues would just be sad.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both C-S and Voltaire in that courage should both be admired and shared. If we admire courage, then, in effect, we should naturally be encouraged to emulate courageousness and attempt to share it with the world.
In taking a somewhat postmodernist standing, I suppose courage can be virtuous in spite of the fact that the act presupposing the courage is evil. If one sincerely thinks there is some validity in his or her actions, even if the rest of us think the actions are evil, such as jihad, would the jihadist not still be more courageous for committing an action, evil though it is, and dying for a cause than the terrorist who is unwilling to give up his life? Although, if the jihadist is only performing this suicidal act as a means to gain heavenly glory, then perhaps it isn't so courageous after all.
As for the last question, past courage certainly encourages future courage, while the only courage that actually exists is courage in the moment.
I think you all are forgetting what we talked about in class. According to C-S there are TWO different types of courage. One that is virtuous and one that isn't. Thus, braving a roller coaster might not be virtuous but it is definitely courageous.
ReplyDeleteCourage is one of the most important virtues because without it one cannot consistently practice the other virtues. It is easy to practice them intermittently, but to practice them unswervingly requires courage. Most of the time virtues are not easy to live by. If they were, then they would not be celebrated as something special. But to practice most of the virtues, a degree of courage or fortitude is required. So, I would say that without courage, none of the other virtues would get any meaningful action.
ReplyDeleteI think that courage is a unique virtue in that it is the most difficult to find a happy medium with. In most of the other virtues, there is not really a practical danger in being in excess of them. Nobody was ever condemned for being too generous, too prudent, or too fidelious (fidelity). However, in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle stresses the importance of finding the middle ground of courage. It is sometimes difficult to be courageous enough to avoid cowardice, but not be goaded into the other extreme, which is recklessness. For example, it could be argued that Sir Thomas More bordered on recklessness when he got Henry VIII so mad when he wouldn’t take the oath.
In response to the question that Ellen posted, I don’t think being called a coward is the worst insult (I have heard some “your mom” jokes that would put being called a coward to shame.) In fact, I googled “worst insult in the world” and coward was not on the list. People need to have a self-knowledge of who they are. If somebody is truly brave, and they know that they are really courageous, then it should not bother them if somebody calls them a coward. The fact that they know their own courage should be enough (unless the person calling them a coward is the girl they like. In that case, they might have to do something to prove their courage.).
I also think that courage in the past is a good indication of courage in the future. How you practice is how you play, so if you build a foundation of acting courageously then you are probably going to act that way in the future.
JJ Ruwe