Is cowardice bad?

[NigelW]

... and why?

 

Why is courage a virtue and can cowardice be a virtue as well?

[shirgall]

... and why?

 

Why is courage a virtue and can cowardice be a virtue as well?

 

It's when cowardice is an unreasonable fear of a challenge that it becomes bad. There can be unreasonable courage too. The balance is in what you fear and what you don't fear.

 

Try Aristotle:

 

 

 

The man who exceeds in fear is a coward; for he fears both what he ought not and as he ought not, and all the similar characterizations attach to him. He is lacking also in confidence; but he is more conspicuous for his excess of fear in painful situations. The coward, then, is a despairing sort of person; for he fears everything. The brave man, on the other hand, has the opposite disposition; for confidence is the mark of a hopeful disposition.

[Heam]

I believe the term "coward" is used to describe a self-preservation behavior which bears within it a betrayal of values.

 

So if I am in a town under attack by Mongols, and I am a military officer whose sworn duty is to defend the town and I flee for self-preservation, I am a coward.

 

If I am just a merchant passing through the town and flee for the sake of self-preservation, I am not a coward as I hold no obligation to defend the city or its inhabitants, assuming my children or kin do not reside there.

[Lars]

Cowardice as a reluctance to act in support of your own values is pretty unhealthy (when it is otherwise safe or preferable to act). Ignore any narcissistic accusations of cowardice designed to provoke self-sacrifice.

[dsayers]

... and why?

 

Why is courage a virtue and can cowardice be a virtue as well?

 

How do you know that courage is a virtue? What is courage? What is cowardice?

 

I ask not just because I'm used to you providing such things. It's also because I usually see the terms used in an attempt to invoke a pre-determined response in others. In other words, I view it as vague and manipulative language. That it's vague tells me it's likely of no value. Certainly much less value than if the person using those words were instead communicating what they were actually trying to say.

[Kevin Beal]

I define cowardice, not as fear, or even as a betrayal of values out of fear. Cowardice, as I understand it, is making the avoidance of your fear or anxiety into a virtue.

 

For example, take the grown man who, instead of confronting his mother on the evil she inflicted on him as a child, pretends to himself and others that he does not do so because it is a virtue to forgive and forget, rather than what is the real reason, which is that the prospect of doing such a thing fills him with overwhelming anxiety and dread.

 

It is against my values to pay taxes, but the fear of getting kidnapped and stolen from keeps me paying. This doesn't make me a coward. Being afraid of lions doesn't make me a coward. Being afraid of moths doesn't make me a coward.

 

Cowardice is not an emotion like fear is. Cowardice is bad (anti-virtue) because it is self deception. It works against honesty.

 

Cowardice is a learned emotional defense developed in early childhood in response to a reality too unbearable to remain conscious of. We can have sympathy for the child who pretends to himself that his parents are not evil monsters in order to maintain his own sanity, but as with a lot of emotional defensiveness, to continue to rely on it into adulthood is something you become responsible for.

 

Similarly, we feel contempt for the man who narcissistically manipulates people, even though it was an effective defense against his mother's terrible lack of boundaries and covert incest when he was a boy.

 

Cowardice evokes my contempt because through people's cowardice they risk infecting and hurting others. "Forgive and forget" is a false morality developed by sociopaths and maintained by cowards, and has enabled much evil in the world.

 

Cowardice is the opposite of courage because it is through honesty and acting on the truth that we achieve courage. Cowardice prevents courage because it is an attack on the truth.

[dsayers]

I appreciate that interpretation. It has given me something to think about.

[powder]

excellent Kevin,...  eeexxxcellent

[NigelW]

My intent is to change something in my life and I am more comfortable defining the terms than talking about the real issue.

 

Fool-heartiness, an over application of courage, is also anti-virtue because excess of restraint or cowardice is anti-virtue and courage is the opposite of cowardice. Applying one standard to one virtue while ignoring the other is not valid. By valid I mean logical or consistent with reality.

 

At the same time, cowardice has it's use. Coward sounds like a name used by a losing team to describe an opponent who retreats for their benefit. Is someone who does not talk to their family a coward? Are they cowering? Is this avoidance a bad thing? Is avoiding abusive people bad? From what I have experienced, cowardice has it's place. It's not true to say that all cowardice is bad because if not talking to abusive people is avoiding them then you are a coward.

 

If my parents call me a coward for not talking to them, then they maybe right, but who gives a fuck? Cowardice has it's place.

 

Since this such a smart crowd, I mean that not in a patronizing or sarcastic manor, you could probably guess what the issue is...

[wigins]

... and why?

 

Why is courage a virtue and can cowardice be a virtue as well?

 

I think those are two separate questions.Why is courage a virtue? Why isn't cowardice a virtue as well?Why is courage a virtue? I think because society/culture most likely made it that way.I'd also bet that it was a Darwinian process, and lager groups of people, under a homogenous culture, were more likely to stick around by promoting individuals who practice courage (selfless behavior/thoughts) with positive reinforcement, while those who practice selfish behavior are discouraged with negative reinforcement.To use the grenade analogy:There are 10 soldiers in a small empty concrete room, with a live grenade. If 1 guy jumps ontop of the grenade, he ensures the safety of 9 others. Assuming you're in a position where selfless cooperation is a benefit (ie, 1 guy enveloping a grenade with his body), that self-sacrafice could actually benefit his genes and the group's genes. So in a Darwinian sense, it's probably an advantage being able to convince people to do things like march into machine gun fire, where self-destruction is more or less assured, so long as you judge the "economics" of the risks/payoff correctly (eg, never gambling the whole-groups existence unless forced to do so).

[Kevin Beal]

Fool-heartiness, an over application of courage, is also anti-virtue because excess of restraint or cowardice is anti-virtue and courage is the opposite of cowardice. Applying one standard to one virtue while ignoring the other is not valid. By valid I mean logical or consistent with reality.

Foolhardiness (too much courage), like Aristotle argues with the "golden mean" is similarly as bad as too much cowardice, but I wonder if this is actually incorrect. Consider the following:

 

If courage is honesty carried into principled action, and if in order for an act to be foolhardy it must be deluded in some sense, and since delusion and honesty are antonyms, then foolhardiness is not an excess of courage.

 

At the same time, cowardice has it's use. Coward sounds like a name used by a losing team to describe an opponent who retreats for their benefit. Is someone who does not talk to their family a coward? Are they cowering? Is this avoidance a bad thing? Is avoiding abusive people bad? From what I have experienced, cowardice has it's place. It's not true to say that all cowardice is bad because if not talking to abusive people is avoiding them then you are a coward.

 

If my parents call me a coward for not talking to them, then they maybe right, but who gives a fuck? Cowardice has it's place.

But that's not how I would define "cowardice". In fact, it could be wisdom that keeps you from engaging bad people. If it's the truth and honesty that leads you to act in a principled way, that's what I would call courage.

 

Stef talks about courage in this listener email question I sent in last year, and gives a really interesting, and unique perspective on what courage is for that I found very helpful and true. (Thanks Stef!)

 

If your parents call you a coward, it could be a last ditch attempt to control you into conforming by getting you to self attack or self loathe. I question whether there is even an ounce of cowardice on your end, in that interaction, but I could definitely see how such vitriol would provoke self doubt.

 

As Stef has argued consistently, we can't be impartial to the opinions of our parents / family. You share way too much history to be impartial. They occupy a portion of your mind, i.e. have been internalized. The outside parent is in agreement with the one inside, almost like a conspiracy against you, making you doubt yourself. But if in conversation with people who aren't total assholes about it, you find agreement with the other half (that I would suspect is the true self) then you can bypass the inner parents and connect with a certainty and moral clarity that you probably already contain within you.

 

That's part of the reason I like talking to other people who have self knowledge, that is I can connect more to myself by connecting with others.

[Truseeker]

 

At the same time, cowardice has it's use. Coward sounds like a name used by a losing team to describe an opponent who retreats for their benefit. Is someone who does not talk to their family a coward? Are they cowering? Is this avoidance a bad thing? Is avoiding abusive people bad? From what I have experienced, cowardice has it's place. It's not true to say that all cowardice is bad because if not talking to abusive people is avoiding them then you are a coward.

 

 

[Truseeker]

 

 

At the same time, cowardice has it's use. Coward sounds like a name used by a losing team to describe an opponent who retreats for their benefit. Is someone who does not talk to their family a coward? Are they cowering? Is this avoidance a bad thing? Is avoiding abusive people bad? From what I have experienced, cowardice has it's place. It's not true to say that all cowardice is bad because if not talking to abusive people is avoiding them then you are a coward.

 

If my parents call me a coward for not talking to them, then they maybe right, but who gives a fuck? Cowardice has it's place.

 

 

 

It depends.  If you want to avoid another situation where you have to deal with annoying people, especially bullies, you're right it isn't.  

 

But for me, cowardice is more an action by a person who decide to throw someone under the bus instead of confronting him or  doesn't want to talk to him but comes with personal attacks behind his back to hurt him.  I've notice it with recent events within the media.

[NigelW]

Foolhardiness (too much courage), like Aristotle argues with the "golden mean" is similarly as bad as too much cowardice, but I wonder if this is actually incorrect. Consider the following:

 

If courage is honesty carried into principled action, and if in order for an act to be foolhardy it must be deluded in some sense, and since delusion and honesty are antonyms, then foolhardiness is not an excess of courage.

 

Hey Kevin, can you give an example of a principled action and an unprincipled action? Maybe I am unclear as to what the goal of being honest is. I listened to the youtube video that you linked and I agree that there is value in showing people that speaking the truth can be done. I doubt that I would have avoided a mess of a life if I did not swan dive into the rabbit hole of self-knowledge. I also get value out of someone affirming that the struggle never ends because I've had the idea that if I am honest that my life will get easier and I will not have to deal with dishonest people again.

 

I've noticed a lack of integrity in the people that I work with. From child abusers gloating about hitting their children and management taking financial advantage of consultant missteps. I see little value in serving these types of people and I don't know what to do.

[RyanT]

Brilliant post Kevin!!

 

Certainly for me 'foolhardiness' has always typified by someone putting themselves in extreme danger to compensate for a perceived lack of actual courage. 

 

Hubris, 'a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities'.

 

It's the solider who charges the enemy machine-gun nest single handed in the hopes of becoming the big brave hero,

or even just the guy who'll leave the house in only a T-shirt, then freezes all night rather than go back for his coat, 

for fear of appearing 'soft'.   

[Kevin Beal]

Hey Kevin, can you give an example of a principled action and an unprincipled action? Maybe I am unclear as to what the goal of being honest is. I listened to the youtube video that you linked and I agree that there is value in showing people that speaking the truth can be done. I doubt that I would have avoided a mess of a life if I did not swan dive into the rabbit hole of self-knowledge. I also get value out of someone affirming that the struggle never ends because I've had the idea that if I am honest that my life will get easier and I will not have to deal with dishonest people again.

 

I've noticed a lack of integrity in the people that I work with. From child abusers gloating about hitting their children and management taking financial advantage of consultant missteps. I see little value in serving these types of people and I don't know what to do.

By principled action, I just mean doing something that is consistent with healthy values. So, like me going to cook myself fish and steamed veggies rather than eating out at Taco Bell, or telling a buddy of mine that I don't want him talking about me in ways that suggest incompetence on my part in the joking fashion that he does, even though it makes me uncomfortable to say it. I don't mean anything too terribly heroic.

 

Yea, that's an interesting question about life getting easier with self knowledge. I think it gets harder in some respects. At least from my own experience, which is that it's harder to ignore things. A quiet little nagging voice bubbling up when I see a child get yelled at is now a loud booming voice prompting me to act. And I can't even imagine a life without assholes somewhere in it.

 

Like Stef said in the video I linked around courage; it attracts good people and bad people. And like he also has said, if you're not pissing off bad people, then you're not doing a good enough job as an ethicist.

 

As far as work goes, I don't think I would advise you do anything that could compromise your job. And I think there are plenty of times that it's better to say nothing.

 

Your question reminds me of what is maybe my favorite podcast:

FDR678 Everything You Do Is...

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_678_Everything_You_Do_Is.mp3

[NigelW]

By principled action, I just mean doing something that is consistent with healthy values. So, like me going to cook myself fish and steamed veggies rather than eating out at Taco Bell, or telling a buddy of mine that I don't want him talking about me in ways that suggest incompetence on my part in the joking fashion that he does, even though it makes me uncomfortable to say it. I don't mean anything too terribly heroic.

 

Yea, that's an interesting question about life getting easier with self knowledge. I think it gets harder in some respects. At least from my own experience, which is that it's harder to ignore things. A quiet little nagging voice bubbling up when I see a child get yelled at is now a loud booming voice prompting me to act. And I can't even imagine a life without assholes somewhere in it.

 

Like Stef said in the video I linked around courage; it attracts good people and bad people. And like he also has said, if you're not pissing off bad people, then you're not doing a good enough job as an ethicist.

 

As far as work goes, I don't think I would advise you do anything that could compromise your job. And I think there are plenty of times that it's better to say nothing.

 

Your question reminds me of what is maybe my favorite podcast:

FDR678 Everything You Do Is...

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_678_Everything_You_Do_Is.mp3

 

I want to see if I follow you. Healthier is a comparison. I would define values as preferences. I prefer to be healthy compared to unhealthy. The way that you're using the term principled action would lead to preferring to live a moral life as opposed to an immoral life. If being courageous is honesty in action, then what is cowardice? I don't know how to use this term in comparison to the definition that you've given.

 

Thank you for recommending the podcast. I found some connection to what Stefan was saying. Mainly, assuming that everything you do is right as being the grappling hook that allows you to climb to the other side of "I know nothing". Another thing that I found valuable was him pointing out that crazy people are certain about a lot of things, even though they have no clue. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaha!

[Kevin Beal]

I want to see if I follow you. Healthier is a comparison. I would define values as preferences. I prefer to be healthy compared to unhealthy. The way that you're using the term principled action would lead to preferring to live a moral life as opposed to an immoral life. If being courageous is honesty in action, then what is cowardice? I don't know how to use this term in comparison to the definition that you've given.

I would modify your definition slightly to say that values are preferences that are more than neutral and have some kind of objective basis concerning behavior. Preferring health to ill health being a good example.

 

"I value writing this program using a programming language over randomly hitting keys with my face" is a very different than saying "I value The Beatles over the Rolling Stones". And that might not be the best example, since the Beatles are clearly objectively better in every respect, but I think you get the distinction I'm making

 

Murder is not evil because a person has died, or even that one person is responsible for that death. Murder is evil, well, because violence is justified to prevent it, but murder is not UPB (i.e. not logically consistent / universalizable) because it appeals to a standard that it violates. That is, murder as part of a moral theory or justification is self detonating.

 

Similarly, cowardice is an appeal to virtue, but is dishonest (honesty being the first virtue). Honesty is to virtue as the law of identity is to logic. But because cowardice is not simply fear, but actually an appeal to virtue, it's logically self detonating, by definition.

 

If you say that values are simply preferences in the way that preferring chocolate to vanilla is a preference, then there is no logical inconsistency in saying that the coward is simply acting with their preference to avoid the truth and call that avoidance a virtue. That is not how I mean it, though.

 

It's Nietzsche's formula for happiness: logic = virtue = happiness

 

Honesty leads to courage which leads ultimately to sustained feelings of self worth and self efficacy. Cowardice chops the legs off right at the beginning.

[NigelW]

I would modify your definition slightly to say that values are preferences that are more than neutral and have some kind of objective basis concerning behavior. Preferring health to ill health being a good example.

 

"I value writing this program using a programming language over randomly hitting keys with my face" is a very different than saying "I value The Beatles over the Rolling Stones". And that might not be the best example, since the Beatles are clearly objectively better in every respect, but I think you get the distinction I'm making

 

Murder is not evil because a person has died, or even that one person is responsible for that death. Murder is evil, well, because violence is justified to prevent it, but murder is not UPB (i.e. not logically consistent / universalizable) because it appeals to a standard that it violates. That is, murder as part of a moral theory or justification is self detonating.

 

Similarly, cowardice is an appeal to virtue, but is dishonest (honesty being the first virtue). Honesty is to virtue as the law of identity is to logic. But because cowardice is not simply fear, but actually an appeal to virtue, it's logically self detonating, by definition.

 

If you say that values are simply preferences in the way that preferring chocolate to vanilla is a preference, then there is no logical inconsistency in saying that the coward is simply acting with their preference to avoid the truth and call that avoidance a virtue. That is not how I mean it, though.

 

It's Nietzsche's formula for happiness: logic = virtue = happiness

 

Honesty leads to courage which leads ultimately to sustained feelings of self worth and self efficacy. Cowardice chops the legs off right at the beginning.

 

This may be annoying but this is a little too abstract for me. Can you give me a few examples of someone being cowardly?

[Kevin Beal]

This may be annoying but this is a little too abstract for me. Can you give me a few examples of someone being cowardly?

Well, like the example I gave before where a guy declines to confront his past abuser because it's too anxiety provoking, but instead of actually saying that it provokes his anxiety, he pretends that it's all about virtue (i.e. "forgive and forget").

 

Or the guy who is too anxious to ask a girl out, and instead of being honest with himself about the anxiety, he makes up some story about her being too much of this or that, pretending to himself that his inaction is just him acting wisely to avoiding being with a woman ostensibly below his "healthy" standards.

 

Or the mother who defends her husband's violent behavior toward their children by making up some story that he can't control it and she's just being compassionate, rather than cowardly enabling him out of anxiety or whatever secondary gains she's benefitting from.

 

Or college girl initially wants to major in engineering, but when she starts to get overwhelmed with what's all entailed and the high standards you have to meet to get a degree in engineering, drops out of that major citing reasons other than her anxiety around failure. Maybe that the patriarchy is conspiring against women in engineering to keep women out, and she's standing against an evil institution.

[NigelW]

Well, like the example I gave before where a guy declines to confront his past abuser because it's too anxiety provoking, but instead of actually saying that it provokes his anxiety, he pretends that it's all about virtue (i.e. "forgive and forget").

 

There may be very good reasons for avoiding confrontation. To make forgiving and forgetting past abuse though...

 

I recently brought up me being pushed down the stairs by my grand father to my grand father. He said things like "if I can't remember, how did it happen?" and "maybe you deserved it?"

 

 

Or the guy who is too anxious to ask a girl out, and instead of being honest with himself about the anxiety, he makes up some story about her being too much of this or that, pretending to himself that his inaction is just him acting wisely to avoiding being with a woman ostensibly below his "healthy" standards.

 

But you just did bring up in a past post that avoiding people may be wise. If a girl has a lot of tattoos can someone reasonably draw any conclusions from that?

 

 

Or the mother who defends her husband's violent behavior toward their children by making up some story that he can't control it and she's just being compassionate, rather than cowardly enabling him out of anxiety or whatever secondary gains she's benefitting from.

 

I see. Calling abusive methods for getting secondary gains a virtue is cowardly. It's not that secondary gains are evil. It's the justification of abuse that is... am I right?

 

 

Or college girl initially wants to major in engineering, but when she starts to get overwhelmed with what's all entailed and the high standards you have to meet to get a degree in engineering, drops out of that major citing reasons other than her anxiety around failure. Maybe that the patriarchy is conspiring against women in engineering to keep women out, and she's standing against an evil institution.

 

Well, as long as she thinks there is conspiracy against her she will never be able to address her fear of failure. That makes sense.