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 Monday, Nov. 19, 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
Tuesday, November 13, 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.
18 comments:
Courage is being fearless and brave. Many journalist have courage because they are forced to take on dangerous topics. For example, Veronica Guerin and Chauncey Bailey. These two journalists were killed in the line of duty. Guerin was killed by gangsters and drug dealers in Ireland, while Bailey was killed by radical black Muslims in California. Crime and violence didn't stop Guerin from doing her job. The book states, "But nothing
would stop her from exposing the lives of gangsters and drug lords. Even when she was shot in the leg, ... she plowed on with her investigations," 126. She did whatever it took, like use her looks, to get a story even if it was dangerous. Even after her and her family were threaten she continued to report. She wanted the people of Dublin to know the truth. The book states, that the life of Guerin was made into a movie. At the end of the movie it states, "One brave woman's fearless stand against Dublin's drug baron forced Ireland's lawmakers to make sweeping changes to the country's justice system," 135. This shows that having courage you can make a change and save someone's life, even if it is not your own.
Bailey was in the same situation. He was in Oakland covering black Muslims and he was shot three times in daylight. The article states, "Bailey was killed for a story. He knew the area was bad because he grew up there, but he still went out and wrote a story.
The other two articles also show people who were fearless and brave. Dr. Tina Strobes hid Jews in her attic during the Holocaust. She knew at any moment she could be killed or sent to a camp. She was doing it because it was "the right thing to do." She would go out on her bike and give out radios out and she created fake ids for Jews. "She was cold and hungry when she took those risks." "Once she was left unconscious after a official threw her against a wall." To have courage you have to take a risk.
Captain Sullenberger was a pilot who landed his plane safely in the Hudson River. Something, maybe birds, knocked out his two engines and he had to make an emergency decision. He let passengers know what was going on and kept them calm. "If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be here today," a passenger said. He showed courage by not panicking and made a bold and brave move by landing the plane. He also took a risk and in the end it saved many people's lives, including his own.
I think that courage resides in a person when they are put in a difficult situation, like a dangerous neighborhood. When faced with that the person has to decide whether or not it is worth it and usually the it is their life.
I believe it is absence in the face of fear because some people just want to do the right thing. they are not worried about themselves, but about other people.I think fear allows people to be brave and have courage because they want to protect others.
I think there is a difference between physical and moral courage. I think physical courage is going out a seeing a bad situation happen and doing something about it. For example, Strobes and Sullenberger. Also, the reporters because they put themselves into dangerous situations and tried to let the readers know the dangers out there.
I think moral courage is knowing something is bad and not doing anything about it. For example, Strobes knew the Holocaust was bad for Jews so she hid them to save them, which is physical courage. If she just had moral courage she would not have hid them, but knew they were in danger. It is not doing something you know should be done and is right.
I think that there's a big difference between the heroic feats of a Tina Strobos, a Captain Sullenberger, and someone like Veronica Guerin, who was definitely more reckless than courageous. Strobos and Sullenberger obviously had a high regard for human life--Strobos goes so far as to scoff at those who hid the Frank family and others for their not having a contingency plan, which led to the loss of human lives; Sullenberger saved 150 people. Guerin didn't even seem to care about her own son's welfare, if she was taking him along on dangerous meetings. Strobos and Sullenberger were courageous (though Strobos toed the line with her admission that as a youth she wanted to do "dangerous things") because they had a clear idea of who they were trying to protect and how they were going to do it. Guerin knew she wanted to help the young drug addicts, but from the description Brown gives, she seems more concerned and frustrated about not being able to get an interview in order to draw attention to the issue than she is at the issue in the first place.
The Chauncey Bailey case seems to at least have had a role in exposing police corruption or sloppiness, whereas Brown makes the point that despite the movie's heroicizing epilogue, Guerin's death had little long-lasting impact on Irish society at large. Bailey also seemed to run into the same problem Guerin did, to a lesser extent--he was clearly being governed by office protocols and editors, unlike Guerin, but he was a pillar of the community and therefore recognizable. Brown makes the point that part of Guerin's problem was that she was being made into a superstar by her paper, therefore making her more noticeable, and leaving her open to stalking and violence. Bailey seemed more cautious, from the articles presented here, but I think that his kindheartedness and community-mindedness put him in too vulnerable a position and ultimately led to his death. He seems sort of like a mix between the courageousness of Strobos and Sullenberger and the public face and fate of Guerin. An advantageous mix, maybe, given what his investigation and subsequent death led to, as opposed to Veronica Guerin dying in vain, but who can truly say if it was really worth it, if a man is dead?
Courage is bravery. It is the ability to do something that frightens you, and it is strength in the face of hardship. Courage is the median between cowardice and recklessness. Courage resides within one’s self. It is not the absence of fear, because fearlessness is an extreme; it is acting in the face of fear, which takes extraordinary strength.
Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, Dr. Tina Strobos, Chauncey Bailey and Veronica Geurin all demonstrated courage in very different ways. Capt. Sullenberger was courageous because he acted quickly under extreme pressure, and saved the lives of 150 people by landing a failing aircraft safely. Dr. Strobos was courageous because she risked her own life to save the lives of more than 100 Jewish refugees in the face of unworldly evil in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. Both these people exemplify physical courage, the ability to act with bravery when faced with a frightening situation. Dr. Strobos was also morally courageous because she understood what she was doing was fighting against morally reprehensible individuals. Being morally courageous is to not just act correctly in a situation, but to seek out the situation in which to act correctly, in order to right a wrong.
It would seem to me that Chauncey Bailey and Veronica Geurin acted recklessly, but with the intent of demonstrating moral courage. The point at which courage turns into recklessness may be invisible to those in the midst of a fight against wrongdoing, although in hindsight, to onlookers, it may be clear. With both cases, the journalists pursued crime stories that put them in physical danger because they felt morally obligated to protect the victims of these crimes, who were members of their communities. Their motives for protecting the public were courageous, but the reporters sacrificing their lives didn’t help to solve the problems, especially in the case of Geurin, who seemed to have died in vain.
I think courage is being brave, but not that alone. Courage is taking action when you know that you will be marginalized or alienated in the process. Courage, in the case of Veronica Guerin was getting the dangerous story. The story that no one could or wanted to get. she knew she could and she went and got in regardless of the perilous situations she may have found herself in. She put herself in a situation where she was reporting on the mob weekly and putting herself in the thick of all of the drama. I think it is different, but apparent, both situationally and individually. In the case of a situation i find that courage is an option and not a definite. If you are faced with an option to sit by and watch an injustice or take action, one has the choice but may not do it. So it is situationally but you must be willing to act on it. Not every one is courageous, but that does not mean that you can't surprise yourself and be courageous at one instant. Overall, i think that some people just have a natural selflessness that allows them to be courageous and maybe set aside their well being for some other objective or goal that they wish to achieve.
In the case of Dr. Tina Strobes, she may argue that it wasn't even courageous it was just the right thing to do. At the time she did not feel full of courage like someone may when saving a dog from getting hit by a car, but the action is still courageous given the stakes of her actions and the potential outcome.
I think this is the difference between physical and moral courage. In my opinion moral is a much different classification of courage. The will to stand up to government or any sort of ruling body is admirable and embodies moral courage. The ability to save people from a fire or any sort of peril is an example of physical courage.
I think that courage resides within a person. A specific situation may lead to courage that is deep down inside of someone to come out, but I believe that courage exists somewhere inside of every person. Dr Tina Strobos is a perfect example of how a situation brought out the courage within a person. She knew that something needed to be done to help save Jews during the Holocaust. She must have been scared because she knew what she was doing was dangerous. She says, "Your conscience tells you to do it. I believe in heroism, and when you’re young you want to do dangerous things.” But she believed in heroism so she mustered her courage and did what needed to be done. This situation is an example of when the courage was needed and ultimately helped and improved the lives of others.
In the case of the Irish reporter Veronica Guerin, I believe that there was an absence of fear. The fact that she brought her infant son with her when she was following up on potentially extremely dangerous leads, and continued for a very long time involving herself with the undergraound gangsters of Dublin, showed that she never had any fear. If she believed that there was anything to be afraid of, I would venture to say that she would have never brought her son along with her. Even after there were warnings and she was shot point-blank in the leg, she didn't care. She must not have had any fear.
I cannot say for sure if there is a major difference between physical and moral courage. Although Dr. Strobos obviously had an immense amount of moral courage when hiding Jews from the Gestapo, physical courage had to have come into play as well. She knew there would be major consequences if she was ever found out, yet she continued anyway. She was hurt when she was questioned by the Gestapo, and she knew what they were capable of. Physical courage and moral courage went hand in hand.
Courage in my eyes is a defining moment when a person acts out in a situation to stand up for what they think is right, for another person who is the target of something bad and is not justified, or a pure act of bravery. Courage resides in a person in my eyes. There can be a situation where courage is needed, but if a person doesn’t have that courage to break out and stand up for what they think is right, then whatever is happening in that situation is going to happen. A situation can be powerful enough to bring out the courage in people, but a person has to have the courage to actually do something about it. Just like Dr. Tina Strobos when she hid over 100 Jews during the Holocaust. The situation was crying for someone to be courageous and brave and take a chance, plenty of people had the opportunity, but she was the only one who acted out, took initiative and did what was right even though the punishment very severe. Chauncey Baily stood up to what was right and wrote in the Oakland Post about the mob in Oakland. Knowing the consequences could be very dangerous to him and his family he did what was right. Unfortunately he was gunned down and killed on his walk to work for standing up to the wrong doing of a group of people. Although he is gone other journalists took his place in reporting and trying to figure why exactly he was kill and open back up the investigation on who killed him and why the cops are not investigating it anymore. I think it is acting up in the face of fear because these journalists and Dr. Strobos know the consequences they could have or may inquire as the result of them being courageous. I think there is a difference between physical and mental courage. Mental courage is deciding that you’re going to stand up and be brave; and overcoming your mind’s conscious on telling you yes or no because of the consequences. Physical courage is carrying out the act. It is when you write the controversial article and when it is printed in the paper, when an athlete plays hurt and has the courage to go on when experiencing excruciating pain. Is the price you are going to pay for being courageous and standing up for what is right worth the consequences you may receive? That’s when the true character of people comes out.
Courage is when bravery and the well-being of others trumps fear and the value of oneself. In the article about Dr. Tina Strobes we see a woman acting out of compassion and love for others even if she is putting her own life in immediate danger. She shows her bravery when she continues to hide Jews in her attic even after being interrogated multiple times and physically assaulted by a Nazi official. Though some people would believe it was not her responsibility to put her own life at risk to protect the lives of others she believed it was her responsibility as a human being to do so. That is true heroism.
In other cases such as Captain Sullenberger who piloted a crashing plane to safety, or Veronica Guerin and Chauncey Bailey who were dedicated journalists killed in the line of duty, these individuals acted on the responsibility to their profession and to those who were dependent on them. Captain Sullenberger showed true bravery in how he handled that situation. A plane he was piloting was literally falling out of the sky and he successfully navigated a safe landing into the Hudson River and saved the lives of the many on board passengers. He kept calm and focused and suppressed his emotions of dread and fear to protect not only his own life but all the lives that dangled on his every move. Taking on that kind of responsibility is true bravery.
In the cases of Guerin and Bailey, in the search of truth they put their own lives at risk and were ultimately killed for their stories. This is something that doesn't usually happen (in the article about Bailey the author said this was the first time in 30 years a journalist was killed for their story) however it is a risk journalists accept when seeking to report and expose the truth. Guerin was threatened multiple times for searching into the lives of gangsters and drug lords, she was even shot. She plowed through these fears and continued to fulfill her duties as a journalist. These journalists knew the dangers of trying to expose such hazardous organizations, and what they try to hide away from the public eye, but they continued on to their death and that is heroic.
Bravery is looking fear and death in the face with strength and tenacity, knowing full well the dangers of a situation and continuing on for the greater good. All of these people were brave because they put others before themselves, whether it was staying on board a falling plane and not evacuating until all passengers are safe, or reporting groundbreaking information about dangerous people and organizations, or hiding Jews during the Holocaust, these people showed true bravery. Bravery is not selfish, it is selfless, nor is it reckless, it is wise and knows the consequences of every action. It is not taking the easy way out, rather bravery is making the hardest choice, the one that can cause you harm but still making that choice because it is what is right.
Courage to me is not the absence of fear, but acting in the face of fear. I think to be fearless sometimes leads to reckless behavior because you don't fear the consequences.
I think courage resides in the person, not in the situation. I don't know if there's a difference between physical and moral courage. I guess a person could lack courage in their daily lives, but have it when it comes to creating change or some greater good. I think a person can lack courage when it comes to defending themselves, but out of their love and compassion for others, gains a sense of courage that they may only possess when they have the power to save others. Like Dr. Strobos, for example. Not to say that she lacked physical courage. But whether she was afraid of what her actions would lead to or not, she continued on with her good work. She possessed great courage, in the face of fear.
To me, in the face of fear refers not only to the person in the position to act courageous, but the fear of others that surrounds them.
The cases of Veronica Guerin and Chauncey Baily are very similar in nature. Both died as a result of their reporting. The AlterNet article states that Baily pleaded for his life before he was killed...I don't know if he didn't think it would happen or he didn't care. Either way, I would say that he possessed great courage in the face of fear. It's tricky with Guerin. I believe she was also very courageous, mainly because she had taken on a role that many would have abandon, especially after being in the leg. But at some point, I think fearlessness prompted reckless behavior in Guerin's reporting...which ultimately led to her death. She was fearless because she immersed herself in the "underworld," became one with it in order to uncover it. She was even at some point face-to-face with a drug lord who beat her and threatened to hurt her son. Still, she proceeded in exposing their activities.
I believe Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger was courageous because he acted, and did so calmly, in the face of fear, as it was his job to. Some people can train on how to go about emergency situations, but fail when put to the test. I think that Sullenberger did the right thing in not feeding into being labeled a hero, but it was his duty to save those people.
I think courage and bravery are within a person, but come to fruition situationally. The Golden Mean illustrates that between cowardice and recklessness, the virtuous choice is courage. I think some of the examples provided illustrate courage, while others fall toward recklessness.
Veronica Guerin acted recklessly. She endangered the welfare of herself and her young child to expose the underbelly of Dublin, but at what I believe to be an unworthy cost. Early on, the chapter states that a gunshot was fired into her home and later the story ends in her own death. The chapter states, "She wasn't just curious about this criminal underworld. She didn't just take an interest in the phenomenon. She developed an obsessive fascination." (127) She used her own sexuality to further her journalistic endeavors and relentlessly pursued the "truth" to any ends. What she did was noble, she exposed something she wholeheartedly believed was important but at the cost of her own life, and the safety of those around her. I respect journalism that pushes the boundaries to expose the truth, as the chapter states, sometimes those don't accomplish as much as they cost.
The story of Dr. Tina Strobos is an example of physical and and moral courage that resided within her as a person and situationally in her time. She took in Jews at the cost of her own life, but in the same vain she did it without the reckless abandon that I believe Guerin possessed. She did it because of empathy and a tremendous amount of courage. There are two quotes by Strobos that characterize her moral actions, but also her sense of self-preservation:
“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.”
(After Nazis shut down her school…)But she continued to study her medical books while working for the underground.
“You have to be a little bit selfish and look after yourself; otherwise you just die inside, you burn out,” she said.
To me, Strobos had the right balance of courageousness and recklessness.
Courage is the ability to overcome one’s greatest fears to accomplish a goal. I believe that courage is not something that resides in every person and is also not something that is a permanent personal trait of those that display it. To display courage, one must be placed in the right situation. A situation where they or others are placed in harms way and have the option of acting on it. By this definition, I also believe that there is a difference between showing courage and being a hero. There are many people who demonstrate courage every day but are not necessarily heroes. I think a good example of this are the many men and woman who serve in our nations military. I would say that every person who serves must have an above average sense of courage in order to do their job well but that does not automatically make them heroes.
In the examples provided, I think that there are two that stand out as backing up my point. In the first article about the woman in Amsterdam who dedicated herself to hiding Jews from the Nazi army there are clear examples of both courage and heroics. To risk her life and do what so many people where to afraid to do sets her apart from everyone else. She saved many lives and set an example for man kind. In retrospect, it can easily be argued that she did not have to do what she did, and if she had not, most people probably would not have blamed her for not acting. Self preservation and fear are forces that prevent most people from doing what she did and is not to be underestimated.
In the example of the pilot who landed the damaged airplane on the hudson river preventing the deaths of everyone aboard is a different case. I would argue that he is not a hero, but instead a very brave and skilled pilot who should be commended for being so. If one were to look back on this case and judge him if he had failed to land the plane they would most likely say that he was a shitty pilot and lacked the skills necessary to react to the dangerous situation. As a pilot it is his job to be able to land a plane in an emergency situation... thats why people who get on a plane pay him the big bucks. I believe that the status of a hero should be reserved for someone who goes above and beyond expectations.
Courage requires conviction and knowledge. It is difficult to have courage without having the information to back up a strongly held belief. This could be situational; while you may have the knowledge and information to back up your conviction in one instance, this may not be true of all the instances that one may be required to act.
For example, Captain Sullenberger was trained and experienced in his profession and, in light of that, had the ability to react courageously in the face of adversity and certain death.
Strobos' courage, though of a different nature than Sullenberger, was still rooted in experience and knowledge, though of a moral rather than technical kind.
Thus, I believe that courage can be summed up as taking a principled stance, or undertaking an arduous task, in the face of adversity or danger, in order to fulfill a greater good. These actions are deeply rooted in the moral and intellectual character of the individual in question.
I believe that courage becomes recklessness when one's actions are no longer rooted in sound information or knowledge, or deviate from a morally just goal.
Courage, in my opinion, is the ability to stand up for what you believe is right despite insurmountable odds with what is “right” being a matter of competing perspectives. In the case of both Veronica Guerin and Chauncey Bailey, in the heat of their reporting, they might have justified their actions as courageous and in the interest of the greater good while now, in hindsight, we might say they acted more reckless and out of the desire to report the story not the good the story would do. In the case of the doctor, that’s a rather black and white case. She put herself in danger in Amsterdam to help Jewish refugees—she put herself in danger to oppose a moral wrong. This is easy to say was courageous: someone who puts himself or herself in danger to save lives. Then again, it’s easy for us, who weren’t involved in the reporting, to say that Veronica and Chauncey were reckless. I don’t think those cases are as straightforward.
As for physical and moral courage, I think there is a distinct difference, moral courage being when you stand up for an ideal or belief putting your character at risk while physical courage is trying to accomplish what you think is right despite a clear threat to your well-being. In the case of the doctor, she displayed both of these: by helping refugees she was placing herself in imminent danger but the reason for this was spawned from a clear aversion to the morals of the Nazis. Same with the pilot: He was placed in direct control of the lives of 150 people and overcame his fear to save them. In the case of Veronica Guerin, I believe this was both as well, but was definitely more of physical courage/recklessness. She wasn’t pursuing this story because she was so repulsed by drug pushers or the Dublin underworld—she did it for the story.
This brings us to fear. I think fear is essential to the definition of courage. Courage, to me, is when you overcome a fear in the interest of what you believe is the greater good. Fear is essential to that definition. Not to say without fear is directly equitable with recklessness. A person without fear may just be less empathetic or more self-serving. Veronica was reckless. She could have not cared about the greater good and been selfish, but still have been careful and mindful—she wasn’t though.
I guess my closing thought is that fear is a requirement for courage, but it isn't a requirement of recklessness.
Courage is taking action to achieve a goal, regardless of your fears.
I think courage resides in the person, but sometimes it takes a situation to bring it out. The difference between physical and moral courage may be that one is considered more moral than the other. But to the actor, are they equal? Maybe.
There is a big difference between having courage and being reckless in your pursuit of your ideals. Was Veronica Guerin pursuing crime for moral reasons- I don't know. She had something to gain (her career and her stories) that was worth less than what she had to lose (her life and her son) yet she went ahead anyway. Similarly to Dr. Tina Strobos who said, "I believe in heroism, and when you’re young you want to do dangerous things.”
Both are doing moral acts but their stories are sensationalized. I would argue that both Guerin and Strobos had moral and physical courage yet they were vastly different in their motives. Guerin knew her work would be exposed, praised, discussed, and she would be compensated. Strobos was exactly the opposite, her moral bravery and courageousness had to be kept a secret. I think the relevant theme here, between all the articles and the text is what motivates people to do the right thing: the 'right' reasons, or the 'wrong' ones.
Courage is having the confidence to step outside their comfort zone and do something different. Whenever someone tries something bold and new, they are experiencing that attempt because of courage. Courage exists in everyone but it takes a specific event to show all the courage a person is capable of and how they will handle it. Because everyone has courage, it can be showcased in different forms because everyone is different. Some people may show their courage physically or morally.
In the case of Captain Sully, his ultimate shining moment of courage was when he landed the plane on the Hudson River. Without Sully's strong courage, many people would be in mourning rather than being thankful. Sully was acted in the face of fear moments before the plane landed when he had to make a decision about what he was going to do.
I believe this goes the same for Dr. Tina Strobos and her family. She was instilled with courage from childhood because of her parents' brave actions. She learned how to embrace their genetic strong culture when faced with visits from the Gestapo.
In the case of Chauncey Bailey, he showed his courage by reporting on a topic that more people should have been aware of. He was abiding by the "seek truth and report" statement, as any journalist should. Of course Bailey should not have been murdered for doing his job, but by doing his job with such courage towards something as risky as a group of radical black Muslims, it shows that he is a courageous man. In Bailey's situation, there was an absence of fear for him, because nothing held Bailey back from reporting on the group.
I believe that everyone experiences an outstanding act of courage at some point in their lives. But it takes that certain situation at the right place and time for their courage to show.
courage is the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear. I believe courage resides in both a partcular situation and person. I don't believe courage is being without fear however, like stated in the above defintion. Courage to me is looking fear in the face and saying "bring it on" It's ignoring that pit in your stomach thats making you feel vulnerable,sick, and weak. We have all been in situatuons where we got that feeling in our stomachs, the fear brewing in the body, and we either fight against the fear and protect what is wrong in the particular situation, or fear prevails and anything courageous goes out the window. Capt. Chelsey Sullenberger, Dr. Tina Strobes, Chancey Baily. and Veronica Guerin are people who looked fear in the face and not only said "bring it on" but basically also told fear to go fuck off because these people took on fear on a whole another level. The level of courage for these people is so phenominal that its hard to compare their courage to any our day by day "courageous acts". Capt. Sullenberger landed a plane in the Hudson successfully, saving 150 peoples lives (physical courage). Dr. Strobos helped Jews during World War II escape the tyranny of the Nazi Party and be sent to concentration camps.(moral and physical courage) Bailey fought to expose police corruption and died doing so. (moral and physical courage). Veronica Guerin helped expose the drug problem in Ireland, trying to help addicts, and to convey to the public and the governement how bad the drug corruption was. She eventually was killed by drug dealers( moral and physical courage). These people all changes lives with their courageous acts. Though some were extremely reckless compared to others, they all disregarded fear in some way. I hope one day i can face fear like these people did and change peoples lives by being recklessly courageous.
In blackest day, in brightest night, Beware your fears made into light Let those who try to stop what's right, Burn like my power*... Sinestro's might!
”
—Sinestro, Green Lantern: Sinestro Corps Special #1 (June 2007)
I think courage resides in the person. It takes a certain type of person to take action without regard for there own safety of well being. This is not the absence of fear but a certain sense of responsibility that supersedes the fear. A truly courageous person is fearful of there action but still follows through. Dr. Tina Strobos and her family embodied courage. There was a very real threat of death but she felt a responsibility to take that risk in order to preserve others lives.Chauncey Bailey had such a passion for journalism and sense of responsibility to the public that he paid the ultimate price. He had been shot three times and still had an undeterred sense of duty. Veronica Guerin had courage in a similar way. She had been covering drug gangs and had received death threats but still reported the situation, because the public had a need to know. She also paid the ultimate price for her courage.
I think that courage is acting in the face of fear, and it resides in a person rather than a situation. I was particularly drawn to the articles on Captain Sullenberger and Dr. Tina Strobos. Captain Sullenberger used all of his years of training to land his plane safely and made sure everyone was ok and out of the plane before he left. He did not think twice about making sure everyone was out of the plane and safe before he left, even though it might have meant he could have gotten injured or killed. To me, that is a real hero. He is someone who cares about others safety and even put it before his own. Dr. Tina Strobos hid people in her house from the Gestapo during World War II even though she could have been killed herself for doing so, just because it was the right thing to do. I think that someone who does something for others just because it is the right thing to do no matter what the circumstances or consequences is extremely courageous. This is an example of moral courage at its best. Moral courage is very different from physical courage. Moral courage is when you do something no matter what the consequences may be, because it is the right thing to do. Physical courage is when you help someone because you are able to and have the physical strength to stand up to the issue.
In my view, courage is an unexplainable human trait which resides within a person, who demonstrates the trait under dangerous, harmful or fearful situations. Not every person can fight off a gunman, rescue a person from a subway train or hide away more than 100 Jewish men, women and children in an attic in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. But Dr. Tina Strobes did.
Dr. Strobos, although endangering the life of herself and her family, acted in courage. She is a perfect example of a courageous being. Although many of us can say we are courageous, all of us have different levels of the trait. Dr. Strobos housed Jews, Communists and other endangered refugees to keep them safe from Nazis. Although the Gestapo had questioned her and rummaged through her house in search of fugitives, she composed herself and continued to save these people. Courage comes from an innate human trait and coincides with advocacy. Courage is released when one stands up for what they truly believe. Courage is part of one’s moral understanding of how the world should work. Through her actions, Dr. Strobos believed that humans shouldn’t be treated in such horrific conditions. Journalists also act in the same manner.
Veronica Guerin died for her courageous acts as a crime reporting journalist. Although she was criticized for putting her son in danger multiple times (129), she is to this day remembered as a courageous journalist. Courage is acting in the face of fear, not the absence of it. According to Journalism Ethics Goes To The Moves, “...she confronts the full human cost of the scourge of drugs when she seeks to interview a group of young drug addicts shooting up on a stairwell with filthy syringes, doubtless already infected with HIV,” (130). The book revealed the next scene from the film, cutting back to where she told her husband about the young men and women, but that “no one” cared. It goes without question that Guerin was placed in a position much different than most journalists. She was physically and sexually assaulted, shot at, and threatened by countless drug users, drug lords and sources. Although viewed as a reckless journalists, she stood up for what she believed in. She continued her reporting, hoping for change. She was placed in dangerous situations but faced them head on and continued her work. That is what courage is. The act of getting back up after you’ve been beaten down, emotionally or physically, and continuing the life you live.
I wouldn’t say there is a difference between physical and moral courage. One acts on physical courage because they value or advocate for something that is intertwined within their moral courage. For example, Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III had performed an act of physical and moral courage by saving the lives of passengers on a 50-ton jetliner. He landed the jetliner on the Hudson River, showcasing an act of physical courage. However, he also acted on moral courage. His actions were based on his value of human life and safety. His moral and physical courage acted together as he saved these individuals and checked each seat before being the last one to leave the plane.
Post a Comment