Is courage always a virtue?

[Gulliamo]

Strange, I always though to suicide as being a coward's way out of a situation, in most cases. In Hitler's case, it was cowardly.

I see it as doing the right thing. Think of the possibilities if we had to try Hitler in a court and have him "judged by his peers". Many thought [hoped] that Saddam would take his own life before falling capture. And it may prove disastrous if he is yet acquitted or escapes or even gets another chance to rant on live TV.

In many cultures taking your own life rather than subjecting yourself to the capture and judgment of your enemy is considered utmost courage.

 

[Bubbles]

I would argue this:

An action is defined by discernment and choice. Discernment is dtermining what is the right action to take. Choice is the descisionas to what action to take; specifically whether one will take the action that one believes to be right.

Courage is choosing to do what one believes is right.

I would argue that courage is always a virtue. When a person shows courage in doing a wrong action, I would argue that the failure is one of discernment, not choice itself. As such, the courage was not at fault.

As regards suicide, I would propose the following situation: A man is working as a spy in Nazi Germany. He is captured and knows that he will be tortured for the names of other spies. He believes that, under said torture, he would divulge those names.

Given that, I believe that suicide would be the proper action to take. It would, no doubt, take courage to do so.

I don't see suicide bombing as being a cowardly action. Unethical, perhaps, but not cowardly.

 

[Kopji]

I would think that courage by definition is a virtue, even if the results of acting on that courage produce bad results. Does it matter what my motivation was?

I generally agree with Aristotle when he places courage as a virtuous middle between two other extremes, the extremes have other words to describe them.

If we describe things as "good", but Aristotle describes two kinds of "good" - real goods and apparent goods.

Knowledge of something: understanding something as it really is, is a real good.

Apparent goods may make us happy, comforted, etc, but when a life is measured at the end, apparent goods are seen for what they were. Hitler's life was full of apparent goods, but devoid of real goods. Was yours a good life? - A judgment made by history.
Godwin lives.

 

[Benguin]

I don't see suicide bombing as being a cowardly action. Unethical, perhaps, but not cowardly.

I don't believe it to be brave for two reasons (but both have qualifications);

1. If the bombers have convinced themselves they are martyrs (again, a misused word) and will be passing over to a glorious future of veneration, paradise and hoards of eager virgins etc, if that is what they genuinely believe then their motives are not 'honourable' but for personal gain.

2. In the case of military/terrorist action which could be carried out by other means (radio control, etc) I see one significant motive as the fact the perpatrator has no fear of facing the consequences of their actions and being held to account.

Courage only applies if you comprehend and appreciate the risks of your actions to your future well being.

I accept that they are not complete explanations, and a flawed in some respects, but I think the glorification of suicide bombers as 'brave' or 'courageous' or 'martyrs' should in itself be subject to skeptical enquiry.

 

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Benguin Hitler himself didn't even have the courage to face up to the judgement call and shot himself. In terms of military conduct, he generally used a combination of overwhelming force and picking on demonstrably weaker opponents (an entirely valid approach, involving neither courage nor stupidity).

Woa, there. Hitler was as courageous as you could hope for. His personal bravery in WWI is well-documented. He had one of the most dangerous jobs in the trenches - messenger - and he refused a promotion that would have taken put him in a less dangerous position.

When he committed suicide at the end, he was living up to his principles. He tried to take the entire German nation with him - after all, in the test of strength, they had lost, and the Ayran race had proved to be the weaker, and so it should die rather than live on as slaves and servants of the Slavs. It was not cowardice that prompted his suicide.

There is no questioning Hitler's courage. Sanity, yes: but courage, no.

I think courage is separate from issues of ethics.

I would agree, except that I think courage is necessary to ethical behaviour. To lack courage is always a vice; but to be courageous does not transform an evil into good.

 

[Benguin]

Woa, there. Hitler was as courageous as you could hope for. His personal bravery in WWI is well-documented. He had one of the most dangerous jobs in the trenches - messenger - and he refused a promotion that would have taken put him in a less dangerous position.

I wasn't thinking of that, my bad, I was thinking Hitler=WWII. Yes, in that context I agree.

As we seemed to be straying into ethics I assumed Radrook was really talking WWII as Hitler's ethical role in WWI isn't an issue, he was not commanding anyone.

When he committed suicide at the end, he was living up to his principles. He tried to take the entire German nation with him - after all, in the test of strength, they had lost, and the Ayran race had proved to be the weaker, and so it should die rather than live on as slaves and servants of the Slavs. It was not cowardice that prompted his suicide.

But that one I don't, courage would have been toughing it out, facing up to his responsibilities. I still think suicide was the easy way out. Maybe, as (I think) you imply, it was more to do with the shame of defeat than the fear of capture.

There is no questioning Hitler's courage. Sanity, yes: but courage, no.

I would agree, except that I think courage is necessary to ethical behaviour. To lack courage is always a vice; but to be courageous does not transform an evil into good.

True. As I said, I agree with you on the WWI conduct, I'm not convinced his WWII conduct was that courageous. Generally very good tactically, but that's not the same thing.


Although given the original topic was "whether courage is always virtuous" I think a discussion of Hitler's attributes as a human is maybe me digressing a bit.

Courage is something distinct from the outcome it may be used for. I might (after more persuading by your good self) have to concede Hitler was courageous, but it wouldn't change what courage is. Or isn't.