In this threadon the man who shot an unconscious robber, a hijack about the bravery of criminals developed.
There was a really good post by someone, but I can’t find it now. Basically, ivan said he thought that not all criminals were cowards–like what of bank robbers. I said I saw nothing courageous in that, and someone else responded, saying that it’s convenient to see people (terrorists, criminals, etc.) as weak/cowardly, but that has nothing to do with their morality. There was, I believe, a Bill Maher quote about the 9/11 terrorists to the effect of we’d rather see them as cowards but say what you will about the morality of it, hijacking a plane and going down with it is not cowardly. Anyway, that poster intrigued me and said it a lot better than I am right now, and that’s what I want to debate.
Are all criminals cowards? Obviously not. But do you think it takes courage to do something morally bankrupt, but that is still frightening or that might lead to death? Is courage only something to talk about when the ultimate outcome is good? Is courage an inherently noble trait?
Some criminals are fearless of physical danger. I don’t think that is a virtue or a failing. It is a morally neutral trait. I would say that criminals lack the courage to lead an honest life.
Courage and cowardice as moral judgments are really mindless politically correct aphorisms that really shouldn’t be taken literally.
I think it’s a lot more frightening for the hard-of-thinking proles to think of their predators as actually being brave.
There are many motivations to become a criminal. Some do it because they are cowards, some do it because they are poor and hungry, some do it because they are lazy, some do it for the thrills and yet some others do it for the lulz.
The idea that bravery or cowardice are indicative of moral virtue is just an abuse of the English language. They are said so that idiots can nod sagely and move on without giving it much more depth of thought.
Sure it’s a virtue. It’s used by criminals for nefarious ends, but if a soldier is fearless of physical danger in the course of mission, it’s certainly a virtue.
Then again, it probably is a failing for criminal in commission of a crime, for otherwise, he probably wouldn’t committing said crime.
Dammit. I knew I should have pasted the post I deleted to my clipboard for later use!
Freudian, I was just checking the news before I left for work when I saw your post in the Ersland thread. I don’t have time now, but when I get home this afternoon this afternoon, I’ll try and reconstruct what I had written.
In a nutshell, I think the same as what Scumpup and mswas have posted. It’s a morally neutral trait.
Courage is a word, and it means precisely what we want it to mean. If you want it to be a morally neutral term that describes the ability to face danger, then it applies to criminals. If you want it to be a term to describe facing danger/adversity in a noble pursuit, then it is not applicable to criminals.
I think it is useful to have both types of terms, if only to have a word (or words) to describe Audie Murphy’s good qualities that is not also directly applicable to this guy.
Courage / Bravery already have somewhat of a positive feel, so I like having them as the morally positive version. Not sure about the morally neutral word, maybe nerve or guts.
I agree that courage is morally neutral. Some outright monsters have been very courageous. It’s both inaccurate and very dangerous to assume that a group you don’t like possesses no positive qualities; it leads to people grossly underestimating them. Nasty people can be brave, smart, loyal, and so on.
Village Boy 2: We’re ashamed to live here. Our fathers are cowards.
Bernardo O’Reilly: Don’t you ever say that again about your fathers, because they are not cowards. You think I am brave because I carry a gun; well, your fathers are much braver because they carry responsibility, for you, your brothers, your sisters, and your mothers. And this responsibility is like a big rock that weighs a ton. It bends and it twists them until finally it buries them under the ground. And there’s nobody says they have to do this. They do it because they love you, and because they want to. I have never had this kind of courage. Running a farm, working like a mule every day with no guarantee anything will ever come of it: this is bravery. That’s why I never even started anything like that… that’s why I never will.
There was some discussion of this in this thread. Don’t think any firm conclusions were reached. I’ll quote my post from that thread:
According to Dictionary.com courage means:
Quote:
n. The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.
The root of the word is “heart”:
Quote:
[Middle English corage, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *corāticum, from Latin cor, heart; see kerd- in Indo-European roots.]
Interestingly it has this note:
Quote:
Usage: See Heroism. – Courage, Bravery, Fortitude, Intrepidity, Gallantry, Valor. Courage is that firmness of spirit and swell of soul which meets danger without fear. Bravery is daring and impetuous courage, like that of one who has the reward continually in view, and displays his courage in daring acts. Fortitude has often been styled “passive courage,” and consist in the habit of encountering danger and enduring pain with a steadfast and unbroken spirit. Valor is courage exhibited in war, and can not be applied to single combats; it is never used figuratively. Intrepidity is firm, unshaken courage. Gallantry is adventurous courage, which courts danger with a high and cheerful spirit. A man may show courage, fortitude, or intrepidity in the common pursuits of life, as well as in war. Valor, bravery, and gallantry are displayed in the contest of arms. Valor belongs only to battle; bravery may be shown in single combat; gallantry may be manifested either in attack or defense; but in the latter ease, the defense is usually turned into an attack.
ETA: I like Cheesesteak’s idea of calling it nerve or guts. Seems more appropriate.
Would it be less controversial just to say that it takes a degree of nerve to rob a bank or hijack a plane? That’s not something that necessarily has any moral component to it, but I think it’s dishonest and wishful thinking to call those people physical “cowards.” Clearly they are not.
IIRC, it was what he said after this that really upset people. He said that the hijackers were not cowards, but that sitting in complete safety and lobbing missiles at your enemies was cowardly.
The other problem is that it encourages the use of “cowardly” as basically a synonym for “bad”. I cringed every time someone described the 9/11 hijackers as “cowards”. There’s a pretty large selection of negative adjectives that could be used to describe them, why people insisted on using an insult that was obviously false was a mystery.
Actually, it’s sort of an interesting question why we insist on calling people we hate “cowards” even when they’re obviously not.
Pretty much. I agree that one must have nerve to pull off a bank heist without pissing their pants, but I prefer to use the term courage for those who actively prepare and defend themselves from said criminal’s activity.
I think every word of that was true. He was talking about the civilian leadership and “we” as a country, though, not the military, but he got accused of calling the troops “cowards.”
I’ll agree it’s silly to say that all criminals are cowards, but I can’t agree that it’s “cowardly” to shoot missiles at your enemies. The point of warfare is to disable the other team. There’s nothing ignoble or cowardly about doing it in the safest manner possible. Yeah, it might take more courage for a soldier to fight someone knife to knife, but it’s not cowardly to just shoot them instead. It’s smart.
No, because degree of risk alone doesn’t determine courage or cowardice. Courage as a virtue means not being deterred by personal fear from taking some otherwise unavoidable risk. Taking an avoidable risk isn’t courageous; it’s stupid. Sending troops in where cruise missiles would do as well or better is taking an avoidable risk, therefore stupid.
Of course, once the cruise missiles have set things up, you need courageous soldiers to go in and hold the territory. That’s courage, just like other kinds of self-sacrifice is courage, even if it is in a bad cause. The Japanese kamikaze, the 9/11 hijackers, the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq - you may not admire their mission, but you have to admire their courage.
I agree with most of what’s been said here, namely, that it takes some amount of nerve or derring-do, or whatever you want to call it, to perform a morally cowardly act.
However, I do not, and never will, believe that stabbing unarmed stewardesses (or stewards) is particularly courageous. In fact, that seems pretty damn cowardly to me.
This, I agree with. What’s the point of sending off people to die just for its own sake? Making a big risky effort can be courageous when needed, but not just because you feel like looking brave.
An FBI Agent and criminal psych expert came to speak with us at an undergrad forensic psychology class. He’d done a lot of work on the psychology of serial bank robbers, and said that one common characteristic they exhibit wasn’t precisely what we’d call courage, but more like what we’d think of as an adrenaline junkie with sociopathic tendancies.