12/28 http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-3/talk_of_the_town_susan_sontag.htm
"In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be
said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not
cowards." -Susan Sontag, Sep 24 2001 issue of the New Yorker
Goddamnit, I hate stupid liberals, especially those who are "smart".
We're on the same team, but these people make us look like idiots.
-liberal
\_ Courage cannot be a morally neutral virtue in Platonian ethics,
for obvious reasons. Plato is so influential in ethical
philosophy, I am surprised this point isn't addressed more.
Unless, of course, she's just a demagogue. -- ilyas
\_ With what do you disagree? That courage can be evaluated in
moral-neutral terms? What was "cowardly" about the attacks?
They were horrendous, shocking, unthinkable. But cowardly?
Calling them cowardly may be a salve for us here, but it's not
necessarily true.
\_ Killing civilians, where the idea is to kill as many as possible,
is almost the purest definition of cowardice. It's discouraging
that someone as "smart" as Sontag couldn't recognize this.
This is no "salve" -- this is the truth, long and short of it.
-liberal
\_ They went after US symbols of monetary and governmental
power. If they wanted to kill as many civilians as possible,
they could have flown the planes into any of the nuclear
plants along the route. I'm not trying to make light of the
deaths, but you've forgotten what the target was.
\_ Actually, the nuclear plants probably would have
killed less people and would have been much harder to
hit.
\_ Says you and who else?
\_ Read up on dirty bombs, and nuclear materials in
general. As for harder to hit, are you an
idiot?
\_ I think Osama thought it was great to kill two birds with
one stone: (1) "Spectacular" attack from killing so
many innocents, and (2) the financial repercussions from
taking out the WTC. I haven't forgotten anything, hombre.
\_ She wasn't exactly a "liberal", more like a "rabble rouser", like
just write/say crap that's total nonsense and dress it up with
high-brow veneer and make it look like someone intelligent
wrote it. I never liked her novels.
\_ Terrorists are all cowards.
\_ It's pretty courageous to drive your car into a crowd of
innocent and unarmed people, which is basically what the
WTC attackers did. If that's not courage then what is?!
\_ how many troll points is this worth?
\_ Your sarcasm meter is on the blink.
\_ you needed more "?!!!"
\_ "Cowards are cruel, but the brave Love mercy, and delight to
save." -- John Gay
"When all the blandishments of life are gone, The coward
sneaks to death, the brave live on." -- Dr. George Swewll
"To wish for death is a coward's part. [Lat., Timidi est
optare necem.] -- Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso)
\_ Those last two quotes miss the point entirely. But
agree with Sontag, willfully piloting a plane into a
buildings is a lot of despicable things, but cowardly
it is not.
\_ I believe Sontag and you are both missing a key point.
The term "cowardly" is NOT morality-neutral. http://m-w.com:
"cowardice": lack of courage or resolution
"courage": mental or moral strength to venture,
persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty
Now, if there were a morality-neutral term to use
for piloting a plane into a building, killing yourself,
then use that term.
This is where you say: "Oh, but it says 'mental' OR
'moral' strength, and I meant mental courage, and that's
morality-neutral, so there!"
Then here is where I say: "The moral connotation trumps
in this case; use a clear, morality-neutral term."
\_ "Well, I believe [...] that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-
indulgent, overrated crap." - Crash Davis, "Bull Durham" |