Wait a sec... weren't you Mr.Amoral who thought that his own life or pretty much anything was more important than morality? If you believe that something is true (rationally), don't you have to act according to that (rational) belief?Scott wrote:I recently came across the question, "Is it better to be a live coward or a dead hero?"
Here is what I think:
One can pointlessly face danger so one can be or seem tough or brave. (I call that self-destructive pseudo-toughness.) 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?
What do you think? Is it better to live as a coward or die as a hero?
And even if you tried to act morally, wouldn't it be better if you stayed alive and instead paid a couple thousands of dollars to a NGO to save more lives while keeping yourself alive? (you might be moral or not, but if you're moral I don't think you can refute utilitarianism).