Some people are called "courageous" while battling a disease...like cancer. But it's not like people choose to get cancer. You get cancer...you can't choose not to have it. You are pretty much forced to face it.
The 9/11 terrorists have been called cowards. They knew they would die...that hardly seems cowardice to me. It would seem to take some sort of courage to do what they did. People don't like to say that because they don't like to use positive words like 'courageous' to describe these terrorists. However does the motivation of an act have to be "good" to be courageous? Not according to any definitions I found. (Besides...who decides if an act is "good"? And what if the person committing the act believes it's "good" even though many would think otherwise?) I was once told that the fact that their victims were unarmed civilians that makes them cowards. But even if the planes were empty and the building were filled with armed military personal....the terrorists' outcome is the same....death. Is sending a missile at an armed soldier miles away courageous?
Let's consider 2 people who walk into a burning building to pull someone out, risking their own live doing so. That sounds courageous. But what if person #1 loves life while person #2 has been considering suicide. I would think that person #1 is more courageous as they risked their life which they value much more than person #2.
No comments:
Post a Comment