Live as a coward or die as a hero?

********.

There are statues to Churchill.

Ergo, there are statues to cowards.

Now take that stick out of your **** and stop mythologising people. They sun didn't shine out of their arses, they weren't 'heroes' to anyone who properly knew them. They worried, they lied, they shat and sweated and cocked up and flinched and fudged. Just like everyone else.

It's what makes people beautiful. Variety, contradiction, contrast. Where the ape meets the angel. It's great.

You, though. You'd rather turn them into plastic fairytale princesses and stone-etched manly paragons of virtue. How dull. How un-human. How fake. How fantasist.

I88-I have no clue what pseudo-PBS broadcast you may get your information but Churchill is the consummate visage of hero or brave. Not only in deed but of intellect and compassion.

It appears that celebrating the accomplishments of others and expecting a standard of honor in a world which is as diverse as it is and providing inspiration by means of exemplifying the human condition at its best is what makes people beautiful, and fosters variety, contradiction and contrast not the mundane processes of life you seem to extol as virtue.

Is it your contention one should aspire to mediocrity by enshrining those functions normal to every individual or are you one of those that believes man is driven to equality and equilibrium?

As mundane a life as Ann Frank desired to lead while her circumstance tragic her thoughts and beliefs inspire the beauty of a heroic and brave life and is celebrated, remembered and memorialized as such today.

Is the angel of the apes Dianne Fossey of the same character as those whom she virtuously and heroically fought against while still performing the same mundane life functions you expose not worthy of a monument to excellence of sacrifice and commitment?

Men and women strive towards excellence for self, community, society and humanity. For this they are immortalized by the reminder in memory and like character in art, history and life.

What is confusing is your willingness to debase anyone who has inspired no matter the degree. So in order to allow at least that little inspiration you crave I will tell you that anyone who is cowardly is a waste of a human respiratory system when they don't even have the humanity or sense of purpose by their own hubris to recognize that there are those who are better at some things than others. And those that are better deserve whatever monuments and distinction accorded no matter what is stuck up their "****". Especially when one considers it his sole obligation to put it there.

One of my friends said that he would like to live the life of a live coward while everyone else lives the life of a dead hero because that would clear up rush hour traffic and probably take care of global warming.
It's a win-win situation so I totally agree with him

If you ever happen to listen to one of Churchill's radio broadcasts, you will hear, in the timbre of his voice, the edge of overcoming-all-odds emotion barely winning out over desperation.

I'm not sure how valuable it is to die following an act of significant bravery or cowardice.
...Whether we die at a peak or trough is largely a matter of chance and circumstance.

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?

It's a noble thought, and I'd like to think I would do that too, but how do we know what we'll do until the time comes? I don't think we do.

Who wouldn't? Many, I suspect. If one accepts the premise that there are things worth dying for, then I suppose there are lesser things one could die for than to save the life of an innocent, but I suspect not everyone accepts that premise.

I think it's okay to ask ourselves these kinds of questions, but I don't think real life very often presents itself in the manner of the hypothetical scenarios we conjure up.

I have a question.
Is a suicide bomber a hero for his cause or a coward for his acts?

"I have a question.
Is a suicide bomber a hero for his cause or a coward for his acts?"

I would say that the perception of the suicide bomber would be that he will be a hero in his own mind (or martyr) should he succeed in his goal. His motive would have to be such that he could overcome the fear of death and his instinct to survive, and religious martyrdom might be a sufficient motive to do that for the "suicide bomber".

It goes without saying that those on the receiving end would hold a vastly different perception of the same event and of the bomber!

Some variants might influence perception however, such as was it a military target or a soft civilian target? Commonly held religious views, the perception of joint suffering, a common understanding of a perceived necessary sacrifice for a bigger goal etc.

I have a question.
Is a suicide bomber a hero for his cause or a coward for his acts?

I see such actions as full of hatered, contempt and similar emotions. Emotions are not acts of rationality. Therefore it is weakness, that to fail to override one's emotions.

I have a question.
Is a suicide bomber a hero for his cause or a coward for his acts?

One of the many definitions of "hero" is someone who performs a noble act despite his fear. Therefore, I suggest we substitute another term for "coward". The term "villain" might be a better antonym. Thus, the question bcomes "Is a suicide bomber a hero for his cause or a villain for his acts?"

The question gets us into the moral morass of consequentialism -- whether the ends justify the means. The trouble with those kinds of questions is not that they don't have an answer. I think they do. The trouble is there's no one around who knows enough and is objective enough to judge the matter and determine the best course.

The point I was trying to make was the words "Hero and Coward" are adjectives humans use to define an emotion humans feel regarding specific acts. But it is one's perception of that act that elicits the emotions used to define a Hero or a Coward. Perception is subjective making the words "Hero and Coward" meaningless in regard to a universal understanding, but rather left to be defined by a persons cultural norms.

Perception is subjective making the words "Hero and Coward" meaningless in regard to a universal understanding, but rather left to be defined by a persons cultural norms.

I don't think individuals have cultural norms. Groups do. In this case the group appears to have two conflicting norms. Isn't that just an illusion? I read about the Fundamental Attribution Error. It's the tendency to view the behavior of others as a trait rather than as a factor influencd by situational variables. Cultural norms usually help a group to live together. I don't see any relief in that direction for this problem..

I not all that sure I'm right about this matter. Criticism is welcome.

Groups are made up of individuals. These individuals have specific behavior patterns. These behavior patterns are what make up a groups cultural norms. Cultural norms are the beliefs,values, attitudes and behaviors that take place in the context of an individuals organized culture. Cultural norms are developed to "help" the culture or group that developed them. Therefor someone from outside a particular group may not hold the same cultural norms, (beliefs, values,attitudes and behaviors) that define that particular group. So someone who is a hero to one group may be a coward to another based on the individual's specific set of cultural norms.

My choice thereof would to die as a hero to myslef, be my own hero, view myself in a way where i can honestly state that i have lived how i should have wished to live, that i have achieved all that i have seeked to achieve in the oppointed time giving myself. There is much more to this question than how it is layed out, for example why die a hero, why seek to live as a coward, what constitutes as a hero, what morals and ethics are involved to be or not to be either of these two symbols. A lot of explanation goes into our answer to this question.

Die for something that matters, if it is something simple I would not do it. But if it was big and mattered then you are almost obligated. We all die, might as well be for something that makes a difference.