|
We had a discussion in class today about what it means to be a coward. A few people argued that cowardice was running in the face of danger, leaving your friends behind for your own personal safety, or wetting your pants in general. While that may be true, I don't think that this is the real definition of what it means to be a coward.
Would you call somebody who dodges a game a coward? It may be that he's too scared to face you again, or maybe it's the opposite reason-the fact that he's too proud to face you again.
Would you consider soldiers who commit war crimes cowards? Cowards in that they would be mistreating helpless prisoners or civilians? Or would you consider them psychologically scarred from war?
Similarly, would you consider leaders of countries cowards? They send soldiers off to war to die, soldiers that they likely do not know, and for a goal that nobody really understands, under pressure from his country. But is it really his cowardice, or is it the cowardice of the country to find solutions that don't involve sending people to their deaths?
Are leaders in general cowards? We may picture leaders as such persons as Richard the Lionheart, Martin Luther King, and so forth, brave persons of might, but are leaders really that courageous, or do they use their supporters-whether voluntary or mandatory-as a tool to achieve their goals rather than risk their own necks?
Are musicians cowards? Could one not argue that they run away from life, defend a cause through a medium rather than directly, preferring to express their opinions than solve their opinions?
Likewise, are not workers cowards, preferring to slack away at a position rather than achieve whatever their true dream is, no matter how uneconomically sound it may be?
Are children cowards? Upon something bad, they usually try to hide behind their parents, for responsibility? Or are the parents cowards, for refusing to allow their children to bear the blame for their own mistakes?
Are you a coward?
|
Cowardice is not doing what you think you ought to do.
|
cowardice isnt a binary state. There are varying degrees of cowardice. I think everyone is a coward to some extent.
|
On October 16 2009 10:05 qrs wrote:
Cowardice is not doing what you think you ought to do.
Sometimes its hard to tell what you ought to do, and one path is simply more scary than the other.
|
Cowardice is playing protoss and then whining about PvZ.
|
On October 16 2009 10:09 writer22816 wrote:
Cowardice is playing protoss and then whining about PvZ.
Shhh, don't tell Motbob.
|
On October 16 2009 10:06 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 10:05 qrs wrote:
Cowardice is not doing what you think you ought to do. Sometimes its hard to tell what you ought to do, and one path is simply more scary than the other.
qrs is spot on. Not knowing what you ought to do is a different matter from not actually doing it. Knowing what you ought to do is discussing morality and principle; acting on those principles is cowardice or bravery.
|
On October 16 2009 10:09 writer22816 wrote:
Cowardice is playing protoss and then whining about PvZ.
Cowardice is about a guy named Caller playing Terran, the overpowered race, and when you realize that TvP is not a free win like TvZ, you make a blog on TL about how "gay" it is be toss with their cheeses in a nicely disguised style of thread
|
There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity. Likewise, what defines cowardice (which I would see as the opposite of bravery) is difficult to sum up in a single sentence.
I would say:
Cowardice is the inability to behave in a rational manner in the face of fear.
If you're alone on the battlefield holding a position of no value by yourself and faced with an overwhelming foe, retreat is the intelligent option. If you're out on the battlefield covering a vital position that you must hold or you and all your friends will die, then retreat becomes cowardice.
Unfortunately, life is rarely so black and white.
|
On October 16 2009 10:18 AzureEye wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 10:09 writer22816 wrote:
Cowardice is playing protoss and then whining about PvZ. Cowardice is about a guy named Caller playing Terran, the overpowered race, and when you realize that TvP is not a free win like TvZ, you make a blog on TL about how "gay" it is be toss with their cheeses in a nicely disguised style of thread
Doesn't he play Random?
|
On October 16 2009 10:24 Valentine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 10:18 AzureEye wrote:On October 16 2009 10:09 writer22816 wrote:
Cowardice is playing protoss and then whining about PvZ. Cowardice is about a guy named Caller playing Terran, the overpowered race, and when you realize that TvP is not a free win like TvZ, you make a blog on TL about how "gay" it is be toss with their cheeses in a nicely disguised style of thread Doesn't he play Random?
At least he claims he does. Whether he does or not, his preference for one race is obvious when he bashes the other race.
|
On October 16 2009 10:29 AzureEye wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 10:24 Valentine wrote:On October 16 2009 10:18 AzureEye wrote:On October 16 2009 10:09 writer22816 wrote:
Cowardice is playing protoss and then whining about PvZ. Cowardice is about a guy named Caller playing Terran, the overpowered race, and when you realize that TvP is not a free win like TvZ, you make a blog on TL about how "gay" it is be toss with their cheeses in a nicely disguised style of thread Doesn't he play Random? At least he claims he does. Whether he does or not, his preference for one race is obvious when he bashes the other race.
i think you're just a coward and can't admit that protoss is 1a2a3a
refusing to budge from the status quo with good reason is cowardice
|
On October 16 2009 10:05 qrs wrote:
Cowardice is not doing what you think you ought to do.
Thats what I believe as well. Cowardice and regret walk hand in hand for me. As long as you can live with yourself at the end of the day. I guess it does not matter much what anyone else thinks is cowardly.
|
discretion is the better part of valor
to survive is the greatest achievement
|
On October 16 2009 10:05 qrs wrote:
Cowardice is not doing what you think you ought to do.
also can be referred to laziness
|
There is no cowardice or bravery. There is only the result of your actions. What you want to achieve is what's important.
|
Everyone is a degree of coward. Cowardice is not doing what you want to (some might say "should") do.
|
Cowardice is not doing what you know is the right thing to do. And courage is doing what you know to be the right thing, no matter how it feels or what the consequences are.
It's not a "should", because sometimes you should keep your job for monetary security even though you're getting underpaid and mistreated. Nor is it a matter of doing what is intellectually the "right thing" - because sometimes it's illegal to do so (or not to do so). It's a matter of what you judge is right and wrong based on your values, beliefs and experiences, and standing up for yourself and others around you by acting.
And the poster above me has it right, that sometimes you can't tell what the right or wrong thing is to do in any given situation... but, I say to that, if you know that you have to do *something* in a situation that calls for action, picking something and going with it is a courageous action in and of itself.
Still, being courageous doesn't mean you can't be "wrong" in a societal or generally-accepted-moral sense... everyone you know may end up despising you for doing courage. And sometimes being a coward is "right" in that moral-societal sense.
|
I don't think cowardice can be defined in terms of simple physical macrostates, e.g. a player seemingly dodging a game, because then all gamers who dodge would be cowards despite the exception which you brought up. Cowardice is more of a biological or mental state, when a person turns away from doing or not doing something seemingly more correct, and instead chooses the easier alternative, usually accompanied with some degree of fear or apprehension. When someone drops out of school because they're not a very good student and wants to get away from the academic world, and is then in a sense running away, then that is cowardice. If someone drops out of university because they cannot afford the financial stress, or because they have a great idea they want to work on that is viable and will have consumers for the eventual product, then that is not cowardice. I think cowardice is probably very dependent on both the underlying conditions of the scenario, the situation itself in which the events unfold, and the person's biological, emotional, and mental states. When one enlists in an armed force to get away from domestic problems, that may be cowardice. But if one enlists in an armed force to sacrifice one's efforts and bodily safety to protect a nation, either one's own or a distressed foreign nation, then that is not cowardice. If one plays StarCraft to get away from problems affecting other aspects of life, be they family issues or whatnot, that might be cowardice; but if one plays for passion of the game and goes to Korea to live one's dream and attempt to build a career, then it's probably not cowardice. As others have mentioned, it can also come in degrees, or be blended in with other human characteristics. Cowardice is probably very much related to sloth and laziness, but with the addition of some fearful or apprehensive unwillingness towards the action(s) in question.
On the other hand, I also want to ponder the notion that cowardice doesn't exist. If a child is abused when young, and from then on has a very real and seemingly negative physical or mental reaction later on at various instances throughout life, that might not be an example of cowardice despite the likeness due to the underlying conditions for that person. If that is the case, perhaps it's possible to extend that to all instances of cowardice, because one wonders whether or not there are underlying conditions that can rationally explain why a given person appears cowardly.
Going by the first variant, most, if not all, people probably display either cowardice, laziness, or inability to some degree. Not engaging in the structuring of public law, consciously maintaining political ignorance, consciously maintaining ecological ignorance, willingly continuing poor financial practices, not fully educating oneself on issues that are of personal interest and importance, etc. are general examples of pulling back from potential states for reasons of cowardice, laziness, or inability. By this definition, I would count myself a coward.
By the second, perhaps no one is a coward. If there are only twenty-four hours a day, of which one only has fifteen minutes free for personal time, then there are mitigating factors that explain for this. Similarly, if one does not have the means, then there is a valid explanation. If one does not stick up for another person, be they friend or stranger, when they are being unjustly picked on and it is within one's means to stop it, then that is cowardice; but if the means are not there, then it cannot be. Then, I would count myself a coward if I have skipped when I had the means, but I could not if the means were not there.
TL;DR version: Cowardice largely depends on a person's means and limitations, and assuming there to be some leeway in this, it then depends on a person's underlying mental, emotional, and biological condition, as well as the situation around which the action is built.
I'm afraid this might not be as well thought out as I wanted, but I tried. I agree with the above post, as well as most of the other more serious ones, but I don't think we'll manage to conclusively nail it down in this thread.
Edit: Typo. Probably a bunch more. =(
|
Cowardice is defined by motive, not action. If someone feels guilty they didn't do something out of fear, they were probably being cowardly.
Calling someone else a coward is an insult, like calling someone an asshole. It doesn't necessarily mean it's based on any truth. It's like the phrase "Brave but stupid" No, just stupid. They didn't know enough not to put themselves in danger. Turn that phrase into "Cowardly, but smart" and you get the same thing. No, just smart enough to know what's going on.
If you have some kind of moral opinion or discussion on any word in the English language, it's going to come down to semantics and personal definitions. And clearly the only one that is right is mine ;P Please slap your teacher for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
