I would say a mixture of emotions carries the hero and fails the coward. I can remember on a ferry travelling back from France in a terrible storm. A French girl fell overboard and I watched her pass the boat, screaming for her father. I knew if I jumped in I would only make her saving that much harder. So I threw as many life belt to her as a could. That feeling of hopelessness was overwhelming. Fortunately they found her by following the life belts and I was acclaimed the hero. I never felt like a hero. I felt quite the opposite. Acting without concern for oneself, ignoring the perils for those you care for, makes us heroes. If that girl had been my child I would not have hesitated to jump in. Would it have been heroic or stupid? I do not know.Trinity wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Might be so. What about those of us who went and fought "despite" their fear? Even those of us who never actually saw physical combat? And, sometimes did?
What is the distinction between cowardice and heroism?
I know what it is.
Live as a coward or die as a hero?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
- Zoot
- Posts: 81
- Joined: April 29th, 2013, 7:43 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Feyerabend
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
Put it this way: if I was about to die, I would gladly trade the lives of every single person on the planet for just a single day of life for myself (luckily for the rest of you, I doubt there are any magical genies out there who'll offer me that deal).
So I'll take a long, dishonourable life as a coward.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
If you believe you could live with yourself afterwards, fine but I doubt it.Zoot wrote:No way would I kill myself to save a 3-year-old kid. I wouldn't kill myself for anybody.
Put it this way: if I was about to die, I would gladly trade the lives of every single person on the planet for just a single day of life for myself (luckily for the rest of you, I doubt there are any magical genies out there who'll offer me that deal).
So I'll take a long, dishonourable life as a coward.
- Zoot
- Posts: 81
- Joined: April 29th, 2013, 7:43 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Feyerabend
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
Well, I certainly can't live with myself if I'm dead, can I?Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
If you believe you could live with yourself afterwards, fine but I doubt it.
More seriously: I'm not sure whether that comment refers to the scenario with the 3-year-old dying, or with everyone on the planet dying. Either way, you're surely overestimating how honourable I am. Thanks, I guess.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
The problem is that you are about to die - every day is bringing it closer and closer. If you maintain this attitude, then the growing realisation of this fact is going to make you very unhappy.Put it this way: if I was about to die, I would gladly trade the lives of every single person on the planet for just a single day of life for myself (luckily for the rest of you, I doubt there are any magical genies out there who'll offer me that deal).
But once you realise that your 'life' is just a temporary configuration of some atoms, no more significant or enduring than the shape of a cloud in the sky, you can relax and enjoy it.
- Zoot
- Posts: 81
- Joined: April 29th, 2013, 7:43 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Feyerabend
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
That I'll be dead one day already does make my very unhappy (well, the problem is really death itself but that there's nothing after death).Londoner wrote:The problem is that you are about to die - every day is bringing it closer and closer. If you maintain this attitude, then the growing realisation of this fact is going to make you very unhappy.
But once you realise that your 'life' is just a temporary configuration of some atoms, no more significant or enduring than the shape of a cloud in the sky, you can relax and enjoy it.
Significance is subjective. My life is certainly significant to me.
My enjoyment of life is, perhaps, a part of the problem here. If it wasn't so enjoyable, losing it probably wouldn't bother me so much.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
I do not see the relevance of that statement. Personally I would rather die trying to save the child, if at all possible, rather than suffer the anguish of not trying and knowing I might have saved that child. If you prize your life that much so be it.Zoot wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Well, I certainly can't live with myself if I'm dead, can I?
More seriously: I'm not sure whether that comment refers to the scenario with the 3-year-old dying, or with everyone on the planet dying. Either way, you're surely overestimating how honourable I am. Thanks, I guess.
- Zoot
- Posts: 81
- Joined: April 29th, 2013, 7:43 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Feyerabend
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
Your comment seemed to suggest that you believed I wouldn't be able to "live with myself" afterwards. If so, you don't know me very well.Xris wrote:I do not see the relevance of that statement. Personally I would rather die trying to save the child, if at all possible, rather than suffer the anguish of not trying and knowing I might have saved that child. If you prize your life that much so be it.
I very much doubt that failing to save a child, where doing so would put my own life in danger, would cause me much anguish. In fact, in my view, I constantly fail to save children even at very little cost to myself (because I fail to give anything to charity, for example), and it causes me no anguish whatsoever.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
If you read my post I said, so be it. I am not going to oppose your views.If that's your moral standpoint, so be it but I find nothing commendable in it.Just imagine the scenario where you are drowning and we all pass you by.I bet you can not stop yourself shouting for help.Zoot wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Your comment seemed to suggest that you believed I wouldn't be able to "live with myself" afterwards. If so, you don't know me very well.
I very much doubt that failing to save a child, where doing so would put my own life in danger, would cause me much anguish. In fact, in my view, I constantly fail to save children even at very little cost to myself (because I fail to give anything to charity, for example), and it causes me no anguish whatsoever.
- Zoot
- Posts: 81
- Joined: April 29th, 2013, 7:43 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Feyerabend
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
Nobody has an obligation to help me if doing so would put their own lives in danger (except, obviously, people employed to do so - such as fire-fighters - provided they're working and haven't just happened to be nearby).Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Simply "passing me by" would be morally wrong in my view. You should try to find a way to help; it's just that your obligations don't extend to putting yourself in danger.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
Where does that 'should' come from? If you are free to choose the circumstances in which you are obliged to help others, why shouldn't they be free to do the same? For example, they might choose not to help you because they dislike your opinions, or because they might get their hands dirty!Simply "passing me by" would be morally wrong in my view. You should try to find a way to help; it's just that your obligations don't extend to putting yourself in danger.
If your moral preferences are based on ideas you believe should apply to everyone, others are free to consider whether the limits you declare are consistent with those ideas. But if your moral preferences just reflect your personal feelings, then you have no right to impose them on others.
Which is it?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
If I thought I was simply going to kill myself trying to help you without any chance of saving you that would be stupid. BUT we are talking about considered risk.If you consider your risk as minimal and do nothing to save that child but I consider it insufficient and help the child. Why should I help you? A fireman or life savers are not paid to kill themselves saving others. Your arrogant statement that you would not help, sounds like you have not considered the argument. Its about putting your life at risk.I chose not to save a young girl that had fallen of a ferry simply because I would not had been able to and would have caused more problems for the experts.But if the chances of saving that girl was reasonable I would have taken the risk.What would you do?Zoot wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Nobody has an obligation to help me if doing so would put their own lives in danger (except, obviously, people employed to do so - such as fire-fighters - provided they're working and haven't just happened to be nearby).
Simply "passing me by" would be morally wrong in my view. You should try to find a way to help; it's just that your obligations don't extend to putting yourself in danger.
- Zoot
- Posts: 81
- Joined: April 29th, 2013, 7:43 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Feyerabend
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
What makes you think I believe myself to be "free to choose the circumstances in which [I'm] obliged to help others"? Morally speaking, I'm not free to choose.Londoner wrote:Where does that 'should' come from? If you are free to choose the circumstances in which you are obliged to help others, why shouldn't they be free to do the same? For example, they might choose not to help you because they dislike your opinions, or because they might get their hands dirty!
If your moral preferences are based on ideas you believe should apply to everyone, others are free to consider whether the limits you declare are consistent with those ideas. But if your moral preferences just reflect your personal feelings, then you have no right to impose them on others.
Which is it?
-- Updated May 8th, 2013, 9:09 am to add the following --
"If you consider your risk as minimal and do nothing to save the child" - that's not the same scenario as what's being discussed on this thread, is it? Let me remind you what the OP said:Xris wrote:If I thought I was simply going to kill myself trying to help you without any chance of saving you that would be stupid. BUT we are talking about considered risk.If you consider your risk as minimal and do nothing to save that child but I consider it insufficient and help the child. Why should I help you? A fireman or life savers are not paid to kill themselves saving others. Your arrogant statement that you would not help, sounds like you have not considered the argument. Its about putting your life at risk.I chose not to save a young girl that had fallen of a ferry simply because I would not had been able to and would have caused more problems for the experts.But if the chances of saving that girl was reasonable I would have taken the risk.What would you do?
"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?"
We're not talking about a situation in which there's minimal danger to my own life, but great danger.
Firefighters and suchlike are paid to expose themselves to significant danger.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
I said 'if'. You either believe you are free or you don't; I wanted to know which.Zoot
Me: Where does that 'should' come from? If you are free to choose the circumstances in which you are obliged to help others, why shouldn't they be free to do the same? For example, they might choose not to help you because they dislike your opinions, or because they might get their hands dirty!
If your moral preferences are based on ideas you believe should apply to everyone, others are free to consider whether the limits you declare are consistent with those ideas. But if your moral preferences just reflect your personal feelings, then you have no right to impose them on others.
Which is it?
What makes you think I believe myself to be "free to choose the circumstances in which [I'm] obliged to help others"? Morally speaking, I'm not free to choose.
So, if say you are not morally speaking free to choose, why not? Where do you derive the moral code that dictates that you are obliged to help others (sometimes)? The reason I ask is that I find it hard to imagine an internally consistent moral code that would support both an obligation to help others and an attitude like:
(nb I understand we are discussing an idea here, so when I use 'you' as shorthand for the idea you have suggested I don't mean it as a personal criticism!)I would gladly trade the lives of every single person on the planet for just a single day of life for myself
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023