The 60th Anniversary of Japanese Surrender

[Az]

Bravery has nothing to do with good or evil. I'm with you on the heroism part, though.

I think that bravery is defined as a positive act.

Courageous isn't.

What if they believed they sacrificed themselves to do good? Defending the emperor/homeland, helping the Asian countries develope under Japanese rule etc. Many people sincerely believed they were doing good.

Doesn't matter. Of course they thought they were doing good, otherwise they wouldn't be so determined ( even people who think they want to commit evil acts, are just defining good differently, thus what they think of as good, is actually good as described by most of society, and not by them. This doesn't have to do much with a neutral definition of good, as according to an ethical codex )

[joncha]

Bravery and courage are the same thing. Neither are related to doing good.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by joncha
Bravery and courage are the same thing. Neither are related to doing good.

This is sig material.


Morality aside, sacrificing yourself for the greater good is very courageous. To conquer the fear of death without being a reckless fool is very courageous.

I hate how the Japanese government keeps what it did from it's populace. Fess up, guys!

But this gets me thinking...what defines heroism? The Alamo defenders fighting thousands of Mexicans. Some people would say that's a futile cause. Same for the 47 Ronin. Then there's Custer's last stand. Thousands of American Indians vs less than 300 Americans. The Zulu/British encounter. The battle at Thermopylae

Why are some of these seen as stupid while others are seen as "heroic"? All have a handful of people fighting off overwhelming numbers and the end result is always the same. They all died for a cause they believed in.

(I'm not taking sides here. I just want an answer. I asked my friends this when we were drinking and they said "Why do you have to keep bringing up all these philosophical things when we're drunk?" )

I blame it on Apolyton.

[Az]

joncha: I thought that bravery and heroism are the same thing. Well, it doesn't really matter, it's a game of definitions.

Heroism and bravery is both very subjective. You can't claim those words for the "good" side since the "good" side depends on where you are standing.

moral relativism

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Az
joncha: I thought that bravery and heroism are the same thing. Well, it doesn't really matter, it's a game of definitions.

Heroism and bravery is both very subjective. You can't claim those words for the "good" side since the "good" side depends on where you are standing.

moral relativism

Yeah, I guess that it's easier to claim that when the "evil" side are performing heroic/brave actions, then they are just fanatics.

Just for the record - blowing yourself to hell is neither heroic nor brave when done against civilians. If I was so unfortunate to belive in a hell, I would say that it was the fastest way to that place.

[Az]

Yeah, I guess that it's easier to claim that when the "evil" side are performing heroic/brave actions, then they are just fanatics.

But they're not heroic, because they're fighting for the wrong cause. Now, maybe they think they're heroic, but that's irrelevant.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Az

Yeah, I guess that it's easier to claim that when the "evil" side are performing heroic/brave actions, then they are just fanatics.

But they're not heroic, because they're fighting for the wrong cause. Now, maybe they think they're heroic, but that's irrelevant.

I think that we are fighting about the meaning of words. Neither heroic or brave implies any kind of goodness, just that the person has done something extraordinary.

[Az]

Oh, if that's how define it, yes. but that's not the definition.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Az
Oh, if that's how define it, yes. but that's not the definition.

well, I go by these :

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brave

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heroic

and neither of them claims that the actions are connected to be good,

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Why are some of these seen as stupid while others are seen as "heroic"?

I think it depends on whether or not it served a useful purpose. The Battle of Thermopolae slowed the Persian advance, giving the Athenians time to withdraw. The Battle of Little Bighorn was a reckless assault simply for the purpose of aggrandizing Custer and putting him on the road to the Whie House.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
troll thread

And a poor one at that...

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I hate how the Japanese government keeps what it did from it's populace. Fess up, guys!

The information is out there. It's up to the Japanese people to face up to what they have done in the past. Yes I know the actions of the goverment but Japan is a modern nation very capable of seeking out information if they choose to.

But this gets me thinking...what defines heroism? The Alamo defenders fighting thousands of Mexicans. Some people would say that's a futile cause. Same for the 47 Ronin. Then there's Custer's last stand. Thousands of American Indians vs less than 300 Americans. The Zulu/British encounter. The battle at Thermopylae

IMO both the Alamo and Thermopylae were examples of bravery in overcoming ones fear to stand up for what they belived in. Custers last stand was sadly the result of one mans ego getting a lot of good men killed for nothing.

[DaShi]

While no country is perfect, and considering their unique past, Japan has made an amazing transition from being an isolated country hostile and distrusting of the rest of the world to one of the major global players that has contributed much to benefit of not only those nations that directly suffered under them but to the whole world as well. Such a change is to be admired. It is unfortunate that the innate racism and greed of people in certain other nations, like China, may be creating a nationalistic conservative backlash in Japan. While the Japanese seem to understand atonement for their crimes, these hypocrits never have, and I doubt they will ever play as positive a role as Japan has in the past 60 years.

[Spiffor]

Things seem to be changing btw. Koizumi and Akihito apologized on behalf of Japan for the suffering caused by the Japanese during WW2 (instead of the usual "personal" apologies), and most Japanese now consider the war to have been a grave mistake on which the country hasn't debated enough (Source: Euronews France).

That's quite different from the picture I had of the Japanese. It looks like the conditions are finally here for the Japanese to really work on their past.

Not that it'll make any difference in international politics, but at least it'll be healthy for the Japanese people.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by BlackCat

well, I go by these :

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brave

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heroic

and neither of them claims that the actions are connected to be good,

Yep.
After all, who decides what´s good (as was already mentioned in this thread)?

If heroism and bravery is connected to doing good or any moral principles, you can say that most soldiers who are considered heroes (and most of the examples mentioned) were neither heroic nor brave,
as their heroic deeds were connected to the killing of other humans (which of course violates moral principles and religious rules like the ten commandments )