What is courage? Does it reside in a situation or person? Is it absence of fear or acting in the face of fear? Is there a difference between physical and moral courage? Refer to the examples below as well as to the chapter on crime news in the text.
Your response is due Tuesday, by 4 p.m.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/nyregion/dr-tina-strobos-who-harbored-jews-from-the-nazis-dies-at-91.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17pilot.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.alternet.org/rights/66424/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/business/media/23bailey.html?pagewanted=all
Teaching Notes
You must become the flame on the candle. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is Media Ethics Education DOA?
It sounds like a joke Jay Leno would tell during his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. Hear about the graduate students at the prestigious journalism school? They got caught cheating on an ethics exam. Ha ha ha. Except that’s actually what happened at Columbia University
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
No one admitted cheating despite pressure from the school’s administrators and pleas from classmates, who feared the scandal would damage the market value of their degrees. Meanwhile, the teacher of the course, New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, refused to comment. But if the disgruntled posts on RateMyProfessors.com are any indication, his students hadn’t exactly been soaking up knowledge. “Maybe he could e-mail his ‘speeches’ to the students instead of making everyone suffer through the most wasted class in j-school. . . ,” one read.
There’s an old cowboy saying that goes, “When your horse dies, get off.” Journalism ethics education is a dead horse. Or else those aren’t vultures circling in the sky.
A Question for Socrates
The question of how ethics is learned, or even if it can be, is as old as Western philosophy. In Plato’s dialog Meno the title character asks, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” Of course, Socrates, being Socrates, resists giving a definite answer. But we can’t. The sad fact is, students had better get an effective ethics education now or they may never.
Last summer I conducted an ethics workshop for some reporters and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal, a small daily in upstate
But what I remember most is the air of defeat that clung to the staff as we sat on hard plastic chairs in the break room discussing the cases. I could hear in their voices the bitterness and cynicism of employees forced to follow corporate policies they despised. Recently, for example, the paper had started running display ads on the front page and section fronts, a much more grievous ethical lapse, their mumbled asides suggested, than anything the case studies might have to offer.
I don’t want my students to ever wear the gray, defeated expression I saw that day on the faces at the Journal. But given the downward direction in which the media are moving, and fast, how in the world can I prevent it from happening?
Teaching Media Ethics by Telling Stories
A friend of mine who teaches at a big Midwestern university recounts in class the events of her first week as a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune. She was sent to Duluth to cover Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey on the campaign trail. When they were introduced, Humphrey vigorously shook her hand. “Oh yes, Susan,” he said, “I read your stuff all the time.” He couldn’t have read her stuff, though; she hadn’t written anything yet. “Just a few words,” she explains to her students, “but words that taught this fledging reporter a great lesson about pols and the little lies they tell.”
I usually find occasion during the semester to quote I. F. Stone’s dictum, “Every government is run by liars and thieves, and nothing they say should be believed,” to make the same point. But Susan’s story makes the point better. That’s because it has existential force. Her story vividly captures in a way a secondhand quote can’t the realities of a reporter’s life.
Some might think telling “war stories” is a waste of precious class time. I’ve a colleague who didn’t want to fall into the “trap” of regaling students with stories ad nauseam (“which, let’s face it, is easier than teaching or grading,” he said). So one semester he kept track. When he toted it all up at the end, he was surprised that he’d used less than an hour - out of 45 – talking about his newspaper experiences. And yet, he admitted, it was his stories that students seemed to remember most.
“Stories teach us how to live,” Daniel Taylor said in his essay, “The Ethical Implications of Storytelling.” What he meant was that stories preserve our experience for contemplation and evaluation. Although not all stories carry a heavy message, there’s an entire category of stories, so-called “exemplary tales,” that are told to convey a moral.
Our war stories are potentially just such tales. They can provide evidence, in ethicist John Barton’s words, of “how real human beings live through various crises and trials and remain human.” My colleague who kept tabs on his storytelling has described his stories as cautionary. Most, he said, deal with “screwups I learned from.”
But sometimes the storyteller and the audience can’t agree on what exactly the moral of a story is.
When Susan was a cub reporter on the Tribune, she interviewed the Beatles, who were on their second tour of the States. She got into their hotel room by dressing up as a waitress in an ugly, mustard-colored uniform and accompanying an actual room service waiter upstairs. Ringo took one look at her little plastic name tag – it read “Donna Brown” – and snorted, “What kind of name is that?” The waiter nudged her in the side. “Tell them what you real name is,” he urged. She did, as well as her reason for being there. Rather than throw her out, the Beatles politely answered her questions. They even let her phone for a photographer. The next day her story ran on the front page, with a photo of John sitting at a table and looking up at her and laughing as she poured coffee in his cup. She still has a glossy print of that photo somewhere.
Many of Susan’s students think she’s nuts for not having the photo hanging up in her office. They also think she’s nuts for saying she’d never participate in the same kind of stunt today. To her celebrity-struck students, disguising herself as a hotel waitress to get an interview with the Beatles seems soooo cool. They lose all sight of the fact that it wasn’t a story of vital public interest that demanded undercover methods.
Susan intends one lesson when she talks about her hard day’s night, but her students, living in a paparazzi-saturated culture, draw another. “It may be a lost cause,” she remarked to me.
Or maybe not. Negotiations over what the point of a story is can be part of the point of the story. In the process of negotiating, we test different interpretations, try out different themes. This is helpful. This is educational. Lawrence Kohlberg, the Harvard psychologist famous for his research on the stages of moral development, contended that “the teaching of virtue is the asking of questions. . . not the giving of answers.” Stories don’t necessarily have to yield clear moral rules to be of value. It’s enough sometimes if they just give us something to think about.
21 comments:
Courage is the ability to do what is right despite the obstacles to make something better. I believe courage comes from a person, not a situation. Situations may allow a person to discover courage, but it still innately derives from within one’s self. Ordinary people and extraordinary people all have the potential to be courageous. Circumstances provide an opportunity but ultimately the person must make a decision to embrace courage or disregard it.
I believe real courage is acting in the face of fear, because to have fear is rational. Fear has the ability to keep us alive. Fear is healthy and recognizing it is important. Otherwise courage becomes simple recklessness. In the case of Veronica Guerin, courage became recklessness. She wanted to do the right thing but that right thing became an “obsession.” She was going to expose dangerous people in a manner that was not conscious of fear or rationale. The greatest example of her recklessness occurred when she placed her own child in direct harm. She would take him with her on investigation without regards to his or her own safety. Someone with courage would have still done the investigation because it was right to report and because of their need for their own child’s safety in the world. Her work became about the story, not about her child’s need to grow up in a safe environment and better world. In contrast Dr. Tina Strobos exhibited real courage. She hid Jews from Nazis – a group who she believed was doing wrong and she knew she had the ability to establish what was right despite the harm she could endure. She did what she had to keep these people safe, but she also proceeded in a way that acknowledged the risks her fear illuminated. She took precautions that kept her ability to do right, but also to keep a better life for the people she wished to protect.
I don’t think there is a monumental difference between moral and physical courage, except by how they may be perceived. Some may think it harder to jump in front of a bullet, while others would find it harder to expose corruption of someone close to them. Both have their own origins and adrenaline rush that allow one to do the right thing. I think that a person has both, but it is still possible that one may be harder than another for an individual. In the case of the pilot who landed in the Hudson, he displayed the utmost physical courage. He simply responded that he was trained to do these kinds of things. Others could not understand his response because they did not believe that someone could just possess such a characteristic with ease.
Courage is with in all of us but it is our choice if we wish to use it.
I think that having courage can be shown when someone does something that they know is right and yet that they might be afraid of actually doing. They face something head-on regardless of what might happen to them for doing so. I believe courage resides in a person as opposed to a situation. When faced with the same situation, people react differently. Some people have courage, while others may not. Situations can help people discover their courage, but I think ultimately courage truly does reside inside of the person. I also feel that courage is not the absence of fear, but acting in the face of fear. When someone acts in the face of fear they are showing true courage.
Veronica Guerin had courage to an extent, but I’m not sure everything she did was truly courageous. In the chapter it talks a lot about how she put not only her self, but also her family in danger. She took her young son with her while she was working on dangerous stories. I think if she was not putting her family in danger and was just putting herself in danger to uncover stories she would be acting truly courageous. The moment she started putting her son and her family in danger, I think part of that courage disappeared. She should have taken a break from her work to focus on protecting her family and making sure they were okay. On the other hand, though, her employers should have done something to make sure that Guerin was protected and not in the spotlight so often. What they did was uncourageous.
I think that what Captain Sullenberger did was truly curagous because he was not putting any other people in danger. Instead he was preventing danger by trying to save others. If it were not for him many people could have been injured or killed. The only person whose life who he truly put in danger was himself. The same goes for Dr. Tina Strobos. She was protecting the lives of innocent people who would have otherwise been hurt or killed. She was putting her life in danger and was doing it to save the lives of others making what she did truly courageous. I think she also brought up a good point though. In the article she is quoted as saying, “You have to be a little bit selfish and look after yourself; otherwise you just die inside, you burn out.” This is something I don’t think Guerin did. While she was acting courageous to an extent, she didn’t look after herself or her family. I think that was her biggest mistake.
Courage is having the bravery and strong mindset to stand up against the majority and believe what you are doing is right and just, despite fear of the consequences. Courage is not situational, it is something that resides in a particular person. All of the examples given demonstrate a person who was aware of the courage inside of them and acted on it. Some may criticize the element of courage and say it is more about recklessness or naivety, especially in the Veronica Guerin case. It is safe to say that most would have stopped investigating after being shot in the leg like Guerin, but she pressed on. Critics of her work claim she became too obsessed with her cause and disregarded the safety of herself and her son just to pursue a story about dangerous criminals. I do not disagree with this point of view, but her unrelenting courage and drive should still be admired.
Tina Strobos is a prime example of the definition of courage. The majority of citizens in Europe during World War II were not standing up to the Nazis and preventing them from taking Jews to concentration camps. But Strobos simply stated she knew it was the right thing to do so she broke the mold and saved some lives.
Courage was a part of the job description for Captain Sullenberger, which further proves that courage is not situational. He was aware and ready to accept whatever happened to him in case of an emergency in order to save others.
I think you cannot have physical courage with moral courage. To me, they go hand in hand and there is not much of a difference between the two. In all of the cases, the subjects did not dwell on the possible repercussions of their actions, they simply did it because they knew they had to. However, as outlined in Guerin's case, there is a fine line between courage and recklessness. Courage should not involve endangering anyone else but yourself when attempting to save others, yet she made the decision to also put her family's life in danger as well as her own, which is careless.
While I think situations themselves can present opportunities in which courage can be grasped (i.e. war), I believe that courage can only be defined by the actions of the individual(s) involved in one of these courage yielding situations. Thus, to kind of echo the great Quintilian ("rhetoric is a good man, speaking well") I personally believe that courage is "any man or woman doing well", more specifically in the face of treachery (not any man or woman doing well because they have a lack of fear). After all, if an individual does not act in a "courageous manner" in the face of all odds, well, you would just have a lot of people dealing with the ebb and flow of an ominous situation.
Furthermore, I believe courage is spawned by the acknowledgement of fear (in almost a metaphysical kind of way), not by being void of fear. For example, if courage is in fact defined as doing something in the face of treachery (as it normally is), if you do not acknowledge said danger, and then act in a certain way against it, you are not acting out of courage, you are simply just acting. Granted, you can still do morally correct things while not acknowledging fear, but that is just being ethical, not being courageous in addition to being ethical.
Now, with that mind-boggler being said, I also feel that courage can be both moral and physical. For example, the actions of Chauncey Bailey, Veronica Guerin and Tina Strobos, did not necessarily require any brute physical acts, just the presence of brute morals (although they did all involve some degree of physical risk in the end). And just because, "Sully's" task required a higher direct need for physical involvement, does not mean it is any more or less courageous or ethical.
In the end, after reading through the articles, it has become clear to me that courage does not have a one size fits all definition, like we typically tend to think it does. While generally we perceive courageous acts as ones in which individuals actively throw themselves towards the jaws of death (like Sam Wise near the end of "Lord of the Rings"), individuals can also be courageous passively as well, by acknowledging potential latent threats and proceeding anyway (as Bailey, Guerin, Strobos, and the others mentioned in the articles did).
Simply put, courage is doing the right thing, when needed.
In reading the text and skimming through examples of articles posted, I believe courage is associated with confidence. Despite the circumstances, some people have the desire to take certain risks. That is what Veronica Guerin did in the text according to (Chap 10). She did not let any obstacle in her path intimidate her. She still wanted to report about the criminals.
When I think of courage, I automatically think of confidence because confidence is having faith that you can do something about a particular situation. I'm not sure how to elaborate, but it is the initial step that people take to get the answers or results they need.
Though it is very difficult at times to deal with constructive criticism and conflict, we have to push forward and be confident in ourselves to do something even though the actions may not sound good to most people; we know in our heart that we are trying to do the right thing.
As college students, I think it is important to analyze ourselves and our actions and not let peoples' opinions get the best of us, otherwise we would lack faith and lose confidence.
Courage is the ability to do something that frightens one. Courage is when a person has the strength to stand up for what they believe is wrong.
I believe courage resides in the person no matter what situation you are in. If a person is confident, they will have the courage to confront anything that is intimidating. It is acting in the face of fear. For instance, investigative journalist Victoria Guerin in her own words would “do anything and go anywhere for a story.” She put her life at risk reporting the crimes of Dublin, Ireland. She developed an obsessive fascination and decided to penetrate it by getting up close and personal with its most sinister inhabitants. Once crimes and suspects were revealed in her stories, she received threats and eventually was murdered by the criminals.
There are times for journalists to report on the most mischievous situations that happen, but I believe Guerin went too far. In the chapter, Guerin’s friend Lisa Hand said Guerin claimed that it is journalists job to “bring corruption to light, to inspire the people and put pressure on the legislature” to make society a better place. Journalists are supposed to inform the public and increase awareness if there is danger, but not to the point when you are meeting face-to-face with the dangerous criminals. It’s the police, courts, and the prison system’s job to tackle those people. Journalists are not liable to do so. Not getting a formal journalism education could be one of the reasons Guerin made risky actions.
Chauncey Bailey took a tremendous amount of courage to expose the true Oakland, California. Growing up there, he said that he could lean out his window and "see the news”. Bailey turned blind eyes to the black ghettos that define many of its suburbs. They are grim, festering places of drugs and shootings. They are places the city wants to forget, but bailey made sure that no one would and he fought through his writing and show that the city is beyond the fancy bars and fine restaurants. In the process of doing that he was murdered. Bailey was assassinated for investigating an Oakland crime gang. His death was a reminder of the other side of Oakland and that investigative reporting is no joking matter. Journalists put themselves out there when reporting on anything whether it is a political issue, concert review, or any news story. When a journalist is writing for the crime column, there are many more precautions each should carefully consider before pursuing further in their stories bravely.
I don’t think there is a difference between physical and moral courage. You need your morals in order to act physically towards your courage. You can have morals, but if you don’t do anything with them then they are nothing. For example, in the New York Times article, Dr. Tina Strobos, was a fearless soft-spoken woman who hid more than 100 Jews in an attic in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam just a few blocks from the hideout where Anne Frank was captured. The Gestapo searched the rooming house numerous times, but Dr. Strobos, beguiled the Germans with her fluency in their language and kept her cool with ingenuous pose. “It’s the right thing to do,” she said. Strobos explained that your conscience tells you to do something. It matters in what an individual believes in. Physical and moral courage both blend together.
I believe that courage is something that resides in a person rather than a situation. It's the ability to do what your conscience is telling you to do despite the situation. Often times a situation will occur that will be dangerous, against your normal habits or actions, or even have you stand up for yourself or someone else. I don't think courage can reside in situations themselves, but can spark courage inside a person.
Courage is acting in the face of fear, rather than the complete absence of it because oftentimes when one is being courageous, there is still fear. I believe that fear never leaves a person fully. Being courageous is facing that fear head-on and doing what needs to be done despite your fear. Also, the way you project courage, physical or moral, doesn't make a difference because it is still the act of being courageous no matter what. A physically weaker person could stand up to a much stronger person without fighting, but with their words and beliefs, defending their thoughts effectively and the stronger person would back off. Or a person could face their fear of heights and go sky-diving, which would literally be facing a fear to display courage, but is also could be seen as reckless in the eyes of someone else.
Guerin was courageous, but she also showed moments of irresponsibility. In hopes to take down dangerous people, obviously she needs to be put in dangerous situations. Putting herself in these situations is one thing, but she also brought her son with her on some occasions. This was irresponsible and where courage fell because she wasn't facing her fear of probably losing her son. Instead of leaving him somewhere safe, she would take him which ultimately puts him in more danger, than if she just left him somewhere. Putting others in danger, in addition to yourself isn't courageous. Captain Sullenberger, however, was courageous because although he would find himself in dangerous situations, they were so that he could save others by preventing the danger.
Journalist Chauncey Bailey was investigating a dangerous case in what was actually his hometown. However, being he was investigating a gang, it ultimately brought him to his death when one of the gang members shot him. This was an act of courage in the sense that he put himself out there in an attempt to bring down dangerous people in further attempts to protect the town from destruction. He physically put himself in the middle of the action, facing any fears he had when investigating the gang. By nature, unless one is part of a gang (or even if their not) it must be frightening since they are often ruthless in their inexplicable acts. Bailey knew if successful, his courageous act to go out where the action is, would benefit the neighborhood, but even though he died, he still demonstrates a great deal of courage because not many people would volunteer for that task. I relate him to Captain Sullenberger because of his actions. He only put himself in danger and no one else.
I define courage as a quality a person possesses when he or she acts in an ethical way in the face of harm, whether it be emotional, social, or physical. Courage is something that comes out in a person when he or she is placed in a difficult situation. So, I believe courage comes from within, but it is brought to light by the environment that surrounds it.
I do not think courage means having no fear. I think having fear is essential to displaying courage. It's acting in the face of fear that makes a person courageous. I also believe that physical and moral courage are one in the same. In order to physically act courageous, you need to consult your morals.
In the first example, a woman tried to provide a safe place for Jews because she consulted her morals about the ideologies of the Nazis. She did not have the same views as the Nazis, and so she acted on behalf of the safety of her Jewish friends. She did this courageously, knowing that there were very serious consequences for her if she was caught.
In the second example, the courage displayed seems slightly less intense, but it still exists. The only difference is that the man who was acting courageously was trained to do so.
In the third and fourth examples, the journalist did show a degree of courage because he pursued a story despite the possibility of danger. However, his courage led to his unnecessary and sad death. If he had taken precautions and rethought his actions, he would probably be alive. Perhaps realizing that his life is worth more than a story would have made him more courageous.
In the case of Veronica Guerin, the course text makes it clear that she was obsessed with crime and repeatedly put herself and her child in danger. Pursuing her stories in the manner that she did does not make her courageous; it makes her naive and careless.
It is important to remember that courage is a very complex idea, and it has its grey areas. I think that danger and fear are inherent in the concept of courage; but it is vital to think logically in order for courageous actions to be worth it.
Courage is to take action in an unstable situation, to the extent of your abilities. In resides in a person and comes out in a situation. For example, the pilot had the ability to fly and land a plane safely. In the emergency situation, Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III stayed calm and did the best he can do in the situation. He had courage because he was trained for such a situation. Dr. Tina Strobos had the ability to hide believers of the Jewish religion during WWII. She knew it was possible for her to hide people in her house, and so she did the courageous act.
Courage is the absence of fear. Veronica Guerin had an impulse of courage that caused her to forget fear. She believed “no one cared” about what was going on in this world, and so she wanted to take action, and did…But there is a difference between physical and moral courage. Veronica Guerin had, in this situation, moral courage. It was the right thing to do, she must have thought. Though, what she also needed was physical courage, to protect her from criminals. I believe Dr. Tina Strobos had physical skills to keep her mind set, stable and her body strong from any harm that might come forward.
To me, courage is a characteristic that some individuals uphold in which they stand up and take action in situations that they believe are wrong and unjust. The situation may be dangerous to the person taking the action, such as the instance with Dr. Strobos. Dr. Strobos strongly believed that what the Nazis were doing were wrong and so she brought danger to herself by hiding the jews in her house. I believe that courage is acting on fear. People may be scared to do something, but if they truly believe that something is wrong and they do something about it, they are courageous. It is standing up against fear. I believe that courage is in the individual. I believe that all people have courage but not all individuals act as strongly upon it as others. There are many people who would not have taken on the story that Chauncey Bailey took on. That really was dangerous to him and ultimately killed him. In the case with the pilot that landed the plane, I do think that is courage but in a different sense. He himself did not like to say that he was a "hero" or had courage. In fact, it seemed like he didn't like when people would say this about him. This to me, describes courage because courage is doing something that you believe is right. You do not do it to be called a hero or courage but rather because you feel in your heart that it is right. I think that Guerin was very courageous. It was harmful, but as stated earlier, she truly believed in what she was fighting against. I do not really feel as if there is a difference between moral and physical courage. I feel like if you are taking a physical action against something it is still because you feel like it is morally right.
Courage can be any number of things. It's completely subjective and situational. I think that courage can be both absence of fear and acting in the face of fear. I think acting in the face of fear is much harder and perhaps "courageous" but maintaing the absence of fear when others can not is also courageous.
Tina Strobos was extremely courageous. Perhaps she was afraid to be caught or executed, or worse she was afraid what would happen to the jews that she was hiding. But she saved them anyway. The article highlights that she maintained composure and steadiness in the face of interrogation and searches. That takes courage. Looking at her history you can also see that Tina was a strong individual that stuck up for what believed. She didn't pledge loyalty to the nazis when they wanted to shut down her school. Instead she studied independently. Her family history also shows traces of courage. Perhaps Tina was a courageous person, but the situation she was in also called for an act of courage.
The pilot who landed the plan in the Hudson committed a very courageous act. Witnesses and passengers also accounted for his "absence of fear" in the situation. He said he was just doing his job. His courage perhaps came from the fact that he was not afraid and that type of courage is okay (and sometimes reckless in the case of Veronica Guerin).
In the articles on Bailey it is hard to distinguish what was courageous and not. The articles themselves can sway your opinion because while Bailey died doing his job, the article goes on to say that his investigation wasn't even that deep and his reporting was sub-par. It's possible Bailey was the victim of a bad situation. However, he did face many tangible death threats and continued his daily routine. Some journalists may have run away to Siberia and perhaps that would have been the smart thing for Bailey to do. However maybe his courage came from being unafraid of thugs threatening his life.
In my opinion the greatest act of courage is acting in the face of fear because it forces you to overcome overwhelming obstacles of emotion and any sort of screaming survival instincts. I think physical and moral courage go hand in hand because the moral courage in your head causes a physical ACTION of courage. The physical courage of standing up to nazis, successfully landing a plane in the river, committing to a daily routine and following a dangerous story all require a courageous morale. The physical is what makes it happen.
Again, there is no clear definition of courage because people redefine it everyday by committing courageous acts that are unlike others before them. Courage can reside in a person and not shown until a certain situation arises where a courageous action is required.
Courage is the willingness to step up in a situation that others turn a
blind eye too. Courage is also standing up for what you believe in and
not being ashamed or uncertain of your opinion. Courage is something
that is instilled within a person from the situations that they were
placed into. A person could have sat on the sidelines their entire
life, and then when placed in a situation, act in a courageous way.
I believe that courage is absence of fear. Dr. Tina Strobos was a
fearless woman who hid Jews in her attic from the Nazis. Tina did not
do this because she was afraid of the Nazi’s, because if this were the
case, she would not have done this at all. Courage is when you do
something knowing that you may be in great danger, but you do it
because you believe in it that strongly.
There is a distinct difference between moral and physical courage, however, the two go hand in hand. People who fight for the country have physical courage to fight, however they have a moral belief as too why they are fighting.
When Tina Strobos was asked why she used her house as a safe haven for jews during WW 2, she responded with "your conscience tells you to do it." Courage allows you to do what you know is right despite any fear you harbor or consequences you might face. Courage ultimately resides in a person although a situation can allow someone to recognize his/her courage.
Though fear can impede one's courageous actions, I think it is healthy to have some fear. Veronica Guerin is an example of someone who acted impulsively and did not consult her conscience when reporting her stories. She completely disregarded the fact that her child was in serious danger when she took him with her to investigate crimes. Courage does not equal stupidity and Veronica could have gotten the same information without risking her child's safety. Tina Strobos and Chesley Sullenberger knew the consequences their actions could have and took the steps they thought were appropriate to save the most lives. I think courage and impulsiveness sometimes get blurred, like in the case of Veronica Guerin. Though Tina Strobos acted quickly to keep her friends out of harms way, she had a well thought out plan to ensure her own safety. Without the fear of death, Strobos might not have taken necessary precautions to preserve her life along with the lives of the people she was trying to protect. Captain Sullenberger did not have much time to come up with a game plan but his fear (along with his training)--that he along with many other passengers could potentially die, allowed him to effectively land his plane.
I do not think there is a difference between physical and moral courage. Without moral courage, I do not think physical courage could exist. Captain Sullenberger knew it was his duty to save his passengers lives and this moral obligation allowed for him to physically land his plane safely.
I think that if Veronica Guerin possessed some sense of self-preservation or fear for her life, she would still be alive today. It was courageous of her to want to shed light on the crimes in Ireland but she did so without thinking of her family or herself. Like Tina Strobos said “You have to be a little bit selfish and look after yourself." Courage is acting in the face of fear and since Guerin didn't have much fear to begin with, she did not act rationally. With this fear, she could have exposed criminals in Ireland and would have been alive to tell the story.
Courage is an ineffable quality that is not singularly produced from a situation or from an individual, but rather, courage is produced in the right people during certain situations.
Age old tales have been told about humans rising against seemingly insurmountable odds to conquer a foe or personal challenge or to win or to save lives. Look at books such as the Bible or the Illiad and the Odyssey. Legend and lore always produces courageous heroes that rise above the rest, complete the trek home, or save the world from sin.
This so-called courage is what sparks our interest as humans and allows us to dream beyond our normal lives to fantasize about being more than we are at this moment and to become someone who loves enough to conquer any obstacle, or someone who will put his life on the line for others -- for the greater good.
Dr. Tina Strobos said it best, I believe. "It's the right thing to do," she said. How simple. How visceral. The right thing to do. De we allow ourselves to do the right thing at all times? Do we risk our lives for the safety and well-being of others? Maybe yes, and maybe no. No judgement will be dispensed either way.
Charles Sullenbereger said it well, too. As a professional, he has taken the responsibility of others' lives in his hands. His quote was equally as powerful, "That's what we're trained to do." But all the training in the world can't guarantee that a person will react with the same poise and posture that Mr. Sullenberger acted with.
Then the question of the (possible) difference between physical and moral courage. Absolutely there is a difference. Most simply because some people have different morals than others. Those who were loyal to the cause of the Nazi party would have seen the harboring of Jews by Dr. Strobos to be an incorrect, and an arguably immoral choice. Whereas, 50+ years later we know that what she did showed great moral (and physical) courage. Physical courage, however can be accomplished by anyone, either good or bad. In the same way, there were many Nazi's who were responsible for courageous acts, even though they have now been labeled, rightfully so, as evil and detestable by the world.
Moral courage must be harder.
Courage, to me, is acting fearless even if you have never felt more afraid. It is also the recognition that your actions can make a difference. I don’t believe that having courage is being fearless, but respecting and recognizing that fear can be a driving force behind our actions. I think that there a connection between physical and moral courage. It seems that moral courage can cause physical courage. To intervene takes both the recognition that something is morally wrong, and often it requires physical courage.
For example, both Chauncey Bailey and Veronica Guerin had moral courage and were exercising said courage in their journalistic efforts, and both were killed because of it. Guerin, especially, seems to have let her moral courage get the best of her at times. She often put herself (and her son) in dangerous situations in pursuit of the crime news and justice. I think that sometimes our moral courage can completely illuminate physical fear, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. I think courage is not synonymous (nor can it be mistaken) for recklessness.. You can be fearless while also having reservations about your well-being.
I think that the most beautiful example of balancing moral and physical courage was in the article about Dr. Tina Strobos, who harbored Jews from the Nazis. In the article it said “She [Strobos] was cold and hungry when she took those risks and was interrogated nine times by the Gestapo. Once, she was left unconscious after an official threw her against a wall.” She said that she did what she felt was right despite constantly putting herself in physical danger. I think this quote by Strobos explains why courage is so important and why so many people tend to shy away from it: “It’s the right thing to do,” she said when asked why she had taken such gambles. “Your conscience tells you to do it. I believe in heroism, and when you’re young you want to do dangerous things.” Not many people believe in heroism, or that it can make a difference. Courageous people are a rare, but essential, breed of people.
When a person disregards his own fear or inhibitions to do something they exhibit courage. I believe the ability to be courageous lies in every person, in some deeper than others. To me, courage, like many other characteristics, grows stronger the more you exercise the muscle. The more a person says and does things they believe are right regardless of opposition, the more courageous they are. Often, this characteristic is brought to the surface by a particular situation.
I think true courage is facing these situations that make you fearful and persevering regardless. The absence of fear, however, is foolish. I think Veronica Guerin, the Irish crime reporter who was murdered because of her investigative work, exhibited this foolish display of courage. She not only put herself in danger, but also involved her family, even after she was shot during her investigation. To me, this illustrates an obsessive type of behavior that disregards common sense and precautions. It is acting without fear, which I think is foolish and not an example of courage at all.
Moral and physical courage are completely separate manifestations of a person’s courage, but are often seen exhibited simultaneously in a situation. An example of moral courage is how Dr. Tina Strobos sheltered Jews in her home during World War I, despite being questioned and having her home searched by the Gestapo. She explained her actions by saying, “It’s the right thing to do. Your conscience tells you to do it. I believe in heroism, and when you’re young you want to do dangerous things.” I think this shows she was morally courageous because she recognized that the decrees regarding Jews passed down by the Nazis were morally reprehensible. Perhaps her youthful mindset of immortality helped her follow through, but I believe her actions were mainly prompted by her recognition of a wrong that she had the power to right on a personal scale.
Also, I believe that Dr. Strobos is a great example of how situations may prompt a person to take action. In addition to her heroism during World War I, she also sprung to action during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when she worked to help find shelter for displaced Southerners at the senior citizens home she lived at. She saw there was a need again and she responded to it.
Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III landing a “wounded” passenger plane on the Hudson River is an example of physical courage. He remained calm in this situation, something that must have been difficult to do, and remembered his training. As he told New York’s deputy secretary for public safety Michael Balboni, “That’s what we’re trained to do.” According to Balboni, Sullenberger did not boast or show emotion. In fact, one of his childhood friends said that he has always been “someone who walks into a room and you know he is in charge.” Because of this, Sullenberger is another example of someone who is naturally courageous, but whose courage was brought to light by a situation. When he was faced with the physical challenge of landing the passenger plane, he took charge and guided the plane to safety. I don’t think this is an example of moral courage because there was no moral dilemma in play. It was a case of survival.
I think courage is the ability to stand for what you believe in, no matter how difficult it may be. It is not situational, though some situations may inspire more courage than others. Courage is simply inside of a person and some situations cause people to be more courageous than others. It is not the absence of fear, a person can be afraid in a situation but still be courageous. It is the ability to think about the situation and still act that makes a person courageous. I believe that there is a difference between moral and physical courage, they require different knowledge and abilities.
Veronica Guerin certainly showed some courageous acts but some of her actions were more irrational than truly courageous. When being courageous, you should not have to put yourself and family in danger, that is not courage, it is recklessness.
In the case of Captain Sullenberger, he was truly courageous. He did not endanger himself or those around him but acted with pure intention of saving others.
Courage is not about shining in the spotlight. When it starts to be about being famous or getting attention, the actions are motivated by a different reason. Acting with courage means acting without any intention of gaining something for yourself, it is acting for the sole reason of standing up for what you believe in.
It is my belief that courage resides in a person. I believe it is acting in the face of fear because having an absence of fear entails recklessness. It’s my belief that there is only moral courage. Moral courage was displayed by Dr. Tina Strobos who had harboured Nazi’s in Amsterdam. That showed moral courage because she was working against the government at the time. However, it is my belief that some courage is implied by a job title. This kind of courage was displayed by Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III. I believe that by taking the title of a pilot you promise a certain amount of composure and courage in bad situations. It is my belief that Dr Strobos and Mr Bailey showed greater courage because they put their lives on the line for something they believed in. In both their situations they were risking their lives despite the fact that their job description had not implied that this was their duty.
In my opinion, courage isn't necessarily in a person or a situation. It is a mixture of both. Courage is the decision made by a person in a given situation. Only after weighing all of the facts in the sitation does a person make a decision on how to act be it courageously or cowardly. A person faced with a decision weighs their own beliefs, morals as well as the situation that they are in. Courage is acting the in face of fear. In my opinion (I would say expierence but I have not done anything truly courageous) the person acting knows fear but those fears do not outweigh the need for action. While yes, both moral and physical courage are both equally as difficult to decide on, they differ in how the individual has to process the decision. It is one thing to barrel headstrong into battle taking out your foes, but it is another thing entirely to be morally courageous such as making the decisions to stand up and speak out against corruption. In physical courage, the only thing that one needs to worry about is physical harm. In moral courage, one's reputation, means, and life are one the line.
I believe that courage is bravery in a sense, but it is also putting other people or situations before yourself. In each example, the person who was praised for their courageousness was also selfless. They performed their courageous acts because they believed that it was the right thing to do, and it would either bring someone to justice or help another human being, or save a life. I think that courage resides in people rather than a situation. A situation can never act courageously, only a person can. Not all people can act courageously even in situations that call for it. Courage is something that always resides in a person but it may take a specific situation to bring it out of them. There is a difference between physical and moral courage in the obvious sense that one requires someone to subject themselves to physical vulnerability and the other does not necessarily. I would not say that one ranks higher than another. Moral courage is a very admirable quality because it means standing up for something that is right no matter how many others are fighting against you.
For example, with Tina Strobos who hid more than 100 Jews from the Nazis in her attic, she had to use both physical courage as well as moral courage. She put her wellbeing in jeopardy delivering ration stamps on her bicycle to Jews hiding on farms. On her trips to do so, she was sometimes cold and hungry, interrogated by Gestapo, and once thrown against a wall and knocked unconscious. She subjected herself to such situations because she realized that it was the right thing to do—that is moral courage.
Drawing from the chapter on Veronica Guerin, it is clear that she was someone who possessed both moral and physical courage. Aiming to publicize the injustice of the drug cartels in Dublin, her and her son’s life was repeatedly threatened by drug lords. In one situation she was severely beaten when she showed up at the home of one of the major criminals. In Guerin’s case, she was killed after she ceased to abandon her fight against the drug scene. Guerin was persistent because she knew what she was doing was right—she was bringing light to a issue that needed to be addressed.
Post a Comment