OU blog

Personal Blogs

Week 17 – Philosophy: Questioning Tradition - Humanities

Visible to anyone in the world

Imagine you’re out for a walk one evening down by a river. You’re enjoying the scenery and tranquility when suddenly you hear a cry for help. There’s a man in the water frantically splashing about. No one else is around and it’s clear that if you don’t do something this man will be in serious trouble. What should you do? Or better yet, what is the courageous thing to do?

The nature of courage and courageousness is a philosophical hot potato. It’s been debated for eons, most notably by the two heavy weights Plato and Aristotle. While both agreed that courage was a virtue - a trait that everyone should aspire to have - they disagreed on the definition.

For Plato courage was linked heavily to knowledge. He argued that a person could only perform a courageous act when he or she understood the dangers involved.

For example, in the above scenario, if you jumped into the river fully aware that you were risking your life, this was a courageous deed. On the other hand, if you jumped in to save the man and yet were ignorant of the risks, this was an act undeserving of praise.

Aristotle’s view was slightly different. He believed everyone possessed courage, just in different quantities. Furthermore, he believed it was the goal of each person to cultivate, what he referred to as, the golden mean, the right amount of courage.

For Aristotle, running away from danger or blindly jumping into danger were both equally foolish and both equally un-virtuous. The correct course of action was always to first assess the situation. A courageous person should only make a move if the risks were reasonable and within his or her control. Otherwise, their duty was to call for help.

Is any of this important, you might be asking? Surely Aristotle and Plato are just debating semantics, after all. You’re right, but these subtle variations have hidden consequences, albeit consequences of a philosophical kind.

Let’s tweak our scenario and explore the implications a little bit more.

Again, you’re still out walking, but this time you’re not alone. You’re with Lois. It’s your first date and after a lovely dinner you take her for a romantic stroll by the river. And yes, your evening is about to be ruined by a man falling into the water.

This time the steaks are higher. There is added pressure for you to make a move. Does this change anything?

Well, for Plato it doesn’t. If you jump into the river to save the man, even under the pretense of trying to impress Lois, you pass his test. You knew the danger, but you acted regardless. Your reason might not be admirable, but your action is.

Unfortunately, Aristotle wouldn’t see it this way. His philosophy of ethics require you do the right thing for the right reason. Jumping into the river in order to impress Lois cancels out your good deed because you are using your courage in a reckless and dangerous manner. In the eyes of Aristotle this is not the behavior of a courageous person.

To illustrate this point in more detail, think about robbing a bank. This is a dangerous act; you could be killed, you could be arrested. But if you went ahead would anyone consider this courageous?

For the hell of it, let’s make one last change to our scenario.

You’re still out with Lois. You’re still down by the river and there’s still a man in the water. Only this time around your name is Clark Kent. a.k.a. Superman. You jump in to save the man and Lois is suitably impressed, however, the question remains: are you courageous?

According to Plato, definitely not. There was no clear and present danger for you in that situation. You’re Superman for crying out loud. The biggest risk you took was getting your shirt wet! In Plato’s world, no danger, no courage.

For Aristotle, though, you’ve ticked all the boxes for being courageous. You didn’t run away, you didn’t take unnecessary risks, and you used your courage for an admirable act.

And there you have it. Two definitions of courage that have no real word application. But hey, that’s philosophy for you. Sometimes it’s popcorn for the mind. Sometimes it’s questioning everything you believe. If you don’t question it why do you believe it.

 


Permalink Add your comment
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 10269