Cowardice

[fast]

I have a question that I'm really not sure about. I don't have a position on it other than I know it's wrong. It's wrong, but is it cowardice?

When we hear about people doing certain kinds of awful things, we also sometimes hear that it was a cowardice act. I've never really quite understood that in its entirety, but my specific question goes beyond any inquisitiveness I might also have in those regards.

If you choose revenge over justice and choose to do so under the cover of darkness instead of the bright of day, and if the reason for that choice is to avoid legal reprocussions, are you therefore a coward? If yes, discussion over, but if no, it would seem that not just any ole fear but rather a specific fear is necessary--or perhaps a specific fear but only under certain conditions.

Assuming that each instance of covert revenge is not cowardice, could your moral position, by chance, account for the difference? For instance, if you genuinely think it's okay to do something illegal and revengeful but choose to hide your actions in fear of being caught, that might be a cowardice act; however, if you go into it accepting full well it's wrong, then hiding your actions to avoid legal reprocussions might be considered by some as simply being smart. Not smart to commit the immoral act but smart to avoid detection.

 

[Bronzeage]

Cowardice, in the strictest sense, is the failure to do one's duty, or fail to fulfill an obligation because of physical fear of injury, death, or some other repercussion. .

To analyse courage and cowardice, we have to understand what the duties and obligations actually are. This can be very hazy area. We all have a vague responsibility toward fellow humans to not create hazards which endanger people. We're not sure if we are obligated to risk injury to save someone from a hazard, which was nothing of our making. This is ordinary society, dealing with strangers.

Cowardice is better defined when special obligations are created. A soldier takes an oath to defend the Constitution, the Crown, the whathaveyou. He now has a special set of obligations which could very well require personal hazard.

In the movie Saving Private Ryan, cowardice well illustrated. The stereotypical writerly type solder is placed in a squad of Army Rangers. The writer soldier has not been trained in combat arms and has not seen combat. The Rangers have been together through several campaigns and each has a personal bond with the other. The writer is given the task of carrying ammunition as required to the different rifle positions. A Ranger is calling for ammo, but when the writer is climbing the stairs, he realizes a German soldier has gotten there first. The Ranger is now in a knife fight with a much larger and stronger German. (In a curious note, the German has chosen to use his knife because he sees the Ranger is out of bullets.) The writer soldier could climb the stairs and shoot the German and save his fellow soldier, but he is paralyzed by fear. He is so scared, the German walks past him and leaves the building.

In a strange rite of redemption, when the Germans are forced to retreat, the writer catches the same German trying to escape. The man has his hands in the air and surrenders, but the writer shoots him at point blank range.

The person who takes revenge in secret has committed an act of cowardice, if we believe there was an obligation to do otherwise. We are generally obligated to not murder our fellow humans, and except to defend ourselves, or others, no justification for murder can be given to an individual. Killing for revenge, punishment, whatever, is reserved for society, not the individual.

 

[rousseau]

Whether or not someone is a coward depends on the definition of coward held by the person who's doing the judging.

If you were to say: "someone who does [x] is always a coward", that would be a logical fallacy because cowardice is contingent on an observer, and observers vary.

 

[fast]

Thank you