Aristotle, Courage, War And The Bible Essay, Research Paper
Introduction
From Desert Storm to Tailhook, prevailing attitudes about military women are
being reformulated and tested in myriad ways. How smoothly or quickly a shift
in attitudes occurs is chiefly a matter of leadership. Commanders must give
women equal access to a level playing field on which each competitor either
succeeds or fails based on individual merit. If you put points on the
scoreboard, you play. Tough standards outlawing fraternization, shunning
paternalism, and minimizing segregation must be accompanied by changes, the hard
fact is that women will fight as well as die in our next war. While a
gender-neutral meritocracy may be difficult to achieve, an initial step is to
promote a shared common identity and purpose: man or woman, a soldier is a
soldier first. (Mariner 54)
Rosemary Mariner writes on a very important topic that circulates through the
ranks of the military as well as through the public eye. We ponder whether or
not women should be allowed to serve among the ranks of those serving in the
combat arms and fighting at the front lines; and if they are not allowed to do
so, why? The reason most likely stems from the early writings of the great
philosophers, which give credence to the belief that women are incapable of
possessing virtues, and in this case the virtue of courage. “Aristotle
maintains that woman is a mutilated or incomplete man…[and] since he
associates heat with life or soul, he therefore supposes women to have less soul
than men” (Agonito 41). For Aristotle the virtue of courage is associated with
the actions of soldiers in battle and soldiers in the armies of his times were
all men. If such is the case, according to Aristotle, then women are incapable
of fighting in wartime situations, because they are not courageous enough.
Plato on the other hand argues that “…we’re dealing with a physically weaker
sex: the males are stronger” (Plato1 162). Other Platonic writings coincide
with this belief. Plato wrote in Laches “If someone is willing to remain in the
ranks and ward off the enemies and not run, you know he is courageous” (Plato2
100), this being the definition of courage according to General Laches. Laches
further explains that “manliness, though fully expressed only in the actions of
war, naturally includes a whole set of other physical and mental habits without
which the citizen-soldier would be incapable of fighting bravely and would lack
the willingness to do his duty, if only because of physical and emotional
exhaustion” (Plato2 109). In either case it would seem that the consensus is
that women should not be allowed to participate in war either because they are
incapable of possessing virtue, or because they are too weak. Nevertheless, it
will be the primary focus of this paper to argue that courage is not a gender
specific virtue. There will be no discussion as to whether or not females are
the weaker of the two sexes as this is a moot topic today, primarily because of
the use of steroids and other strength enhancement drugs as well as the
acceptance of women into the realm of professional strength training.
Virtue
Virtue ethics as a theory of morality has existed, most notably, since
Aristotle, who maintains that women are “incomplete men”. Courage is one of the
virtues discussed by Aristotle. To display courage a person must experience
fear and perceive danger, although the circumstances surrounding an act of
courage need to be proportionate to perceived risk to avoid the activity
becoming an enterprise of foolishness. Furthermore, the potential consequences
associated with the risk must be proportionate to the ends concerning the
bravery. These elements associated with courage are undoubtedly equally
available to both sexes, and in the sense of equality woman can and have been
courageous.
A virtue is an ideal of the way someone should be, a component of character.
Aristotle described virtue as being a mean, or average of attitude, which could
be uncovered via reasoning and displayed through personality and behavior styles
(Hinman 334-335). For example, the average between an excess, like
contrariness, and a deficiency, like sycophancy, might be honest opinion.
Hinman mentions further the difference between substantive virtues; those that
are closer to the ethical good, like philanthropy, and executive virtues; those
less associated with being morally good and more directly linked with qualities
of desirable persona. Courage is said to be an executive virtue, one that
contains at least two components.
Courage
First, there must be an internal factor of fear or even phobia. Psychology
informs us that fear is an awareness of physiological changes in response to
some stimulus or other. These changes include increased respiration, heartbeat,
blood pressure, and higher production of epinephrine (adrenaline). Other changes
such as pupil dilation, increased sweating and decreased production of saliva
are often present too. This process occurs in a part of the autonomic,
non-voluntary, nervous system called the sympathetic division (Aitkenson 331).
All healthy humans have sympathetic divisions of the autonomic nervous system
and are thus prone to the physiological, and psychological effects of fear.
Second, there must be an external factor of perceived danger in a circumstance
for a courageous deed to be possible. The degree of such will depend on how the
individual relates the present circumstance with experiences of past events and
situations. For example, if I see a torrentially flooded river an attempt to
cross it would be perceived as dangerous because I have seen many such
situations on television where lives have been put at risk. This cognitive
component is important in danger because I may enter a dangerous situation
without realizing it and thus act without courage. It could be imagined that an
individual has no idea that in order to cull an animal so that they can feed
their family, they have to walk across a minefield. If the minefield is
unknown to the individual then no fear will be experienced because no danger is
attached to collecting the prey on the other side of the field. In this case no
act of bravery has been committed. Alternatively, it appears courage can be
displayed without any real danger existing. Socrates responds to Laches’
definition of courage with one of his own, stating:
“…courage-like quality is to be found in the movements of the soul that
involve the firm control of passions, the enduring restraint of appetites and
their corresponding pains of frustration of fears of loss, no less than the
endurance of ordinary pain and restraint of ordinary fear. But courage as a
virtue of choice is expressed only in rational actions having to do with danger
and suffering, not temptation and pleasure” (Plato2 109).
Courage & Phobias
Phobias have the component of fear without physical danger. A phobia may be
defined as an irrational fear, associated with a stimulus containing no
objective hazard. To confront a phobia takes similar courage needed in
non-phobic situations because the associated behaviors necessary to conquer the
phobia are manifested despite fear or anxiety. This is contrary to Hinman’s
concept of rightly ordered fears. He maintains that once phobias have been
overcome courage is no longer part of the relationship between actor and
situation. He also maintains that if courage is responding to objectively
identifiable danger then responses to psychological dangers will not count and
if individuals do not perceive objective dangers as such they will not be
counted as courageous. This all appears to be acceptable. However, Hinman then
seems to discount facing phobias as a valid form of courage (Hinman 338).
Phobias may be placed in the objective realm of rightly ordered fears because
for the phobic actor, because no matter how illogical the response is to the
stimulus all elements of fear and danger still exist. The proportion of fear to
actual risk to an un-empathetic observer may be unbalanced. But because fear is
a subjective emotion, it seems illogical to try and objectively quantify, or
comparatively ordinate it with dangers that are also subjectively assessed by
the phobic. All of this infers that courage is more attached to overcoming fear
rather than danger. Indeed, the dangerousness of a situation is often out of the
actor’s control. However, fear is not always a controllable phenomenon either,
and this is perhaps why when people act against perceived danger, in spite of
fear, they are considered courageous (Hinman 338). Again it appears that most
healthy, rational humans, woman and men alike, are capable of recognizing
dangerous situations with the relevant knowledge in tow. Both men and woman
also confront phobias, and so in these respects courage does not appear to be a
gender specific virtue.
There must also be appropriate self-confidence and a relatively accurate
assessment of the risk involved in any action for it to be courageous, rather
than foolish. To skydive without training would be risky. A person, who has
partaken in such an activity without worrying about the likely consequences,
would be quite foolish. However, the same act carried out by someone who is
properly trained can be seen as moderately courageous, at least for the first
few times. Once more, as skill and experience is gained fear is less likely to
be experienced. Indeed, the physiological components once associated with fear
may be associated with an experience of exhilaration. Sensibility is also a
factor in courage. It would also be foolish to do something like risk one’s
life for the sake of something like a Twinkie, because the risk involved, when
compared with the outcome, is far too great. But, to risk life or injury for
the sake of another human being would not be so foolish because the intended
ends justify the possible cost (Hinman 339).
As all of the above appears to be equally applicable to both men and women it
seems almost inane to ask whether or not courage is a gender specific virtue,
but the context of the question needs to be illustrated. For Aristotle the
virtue of courage is associated with actions of soldiers in battle and soldiers
in the armies of his times were all men. Historically, acts of courage
exhibited by woman have tended to be under-valued, or even unrecognized (Hinman
341). The above modern framing of the concept of courage is far wider than
Aristotle’s and women are generally more accepted as being equal to men now, and
it is therefore safe to say courage is not gender-specific. Courage is not
limited to the confines of the battlefield; it can be displayed in any risky
situation. However, to keep with the argument that Aristotle asserts we will
first use an example of a wartime situation that had occurred prior to the life
of Aristotle and proves that women can possess courage during battle. We will
then access an example of a non-wartime situation from the present that shows an
example of courage in women. The first example comes from the Old Testament and
was readily available for Aristotle and his students.
The courage of Jael
The book of Judges is dated between 1200-1020 B.C.E. (New Revised Standard
Version 367). In the book of Judges there is a reoccurring theme of Israel
being delivered into the hands of another nation because they are not right with
God. However, the Lord, as intolerable as he may be, eventually hears the cries
of Israel and raises up Judges to deliver Israel from their oppressors. One
such Judge was Deborah. Deborah, along with an Israelite General named Barak,
was to deliver the Israelites from the Canaanites by defeating the army of
Jabin. As Barak and his army defeated Jabin’s army, Jabin’s top General,
Sisera, fled for his life.
“He came to the place where Heber and his family dwelt, and assumed that he
could accept Jael’s hospitality since they had an alliance with Jabin King of
Hazor. Sisera, exhausted form the battle and chase, fell asleep while hiding
under a covering in Jael’s tent. While he slept, Jael took a tent peg and ran
it through his temple–a very brave deed, considering that the Israelites had
not totally subdued the area and Jabin could be expected to retaliate” (Gardner
287).
Gardner has given a good summary; however, it does not heed the justice that is
deserved either to the story or to the character of Jael.
Jael & Sisera
In the Biblical account we are given first the information that, “All the army
of Sisera fell by the sword; no one was left” (New Revised Standard Version,
Judges 4:16). So even from a fairly distant location, onlookers would know that
Sisera was defeated in battle. We also know that Sisera was afoot (New Revised
Standard Version, Judges 4:17) and the place where he would hide would have to
be close. It further follows that King Jabin and the clan of Heber had a peace
treaty of some sorts (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4:17), and that Jael
was from the clan of Heber. Jael at this point becomes the primary focus of
Judges chapter 4 (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4: 18-24).
It can be construed that she is fully aware of her political situation not only
that she, and her clan, are allies to King Jabin but also that there is some
political tension between the Israelites and the clan of Heber; this stemming
from the hatred between the Israelites and King Jabin. In fear of being
succumbed and enslaved by the Israelites Jael devises a plan and sets it into
motion. It can be assumed that this is done to ensure the safety of her, her
family and her fellow clansmen. This is done first by offering safety to General
Sisera; “Jael came out to meet Sisera, and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord,
turn aside to me; have no fear” (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4:18).
She guarantees his safety by insisting that he have no fear. She covers him
with a rug and he asks for water, “So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a
drink and covered him” (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4:18). Her choice
of giving him warm milk as opposed to water is important to note here. She
chooses milk primarily because it is a time-tested sedative. “Experts believe
the amino acid l-Tryptophan (found in milk and other foods such as turkey and
eggs) makes eyelids heavy by raising the level of a chemical in the brain called
serotonin” (Ahealthyme.com). Jael knew the affect that the warm milk would have
on Sisera, which was part of her plan. Once Sisera was asleep “Jael…took a
tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the
peg into his temple, until it went down into the ground…and he died” (New
Revised Standard Version, Judges 4:21).
It is only logical to conclude that Jael, knowing of her political situation and
knowing how to ensure her and her clansmen’s safety, acted in a courageous
manner during a time of war. She did this by killing and delivering Sisera into
the hands of Barak and the Israelites. Knowing that the Israelites were
pursuing Sisera she took him into her tent, her violation was two-fold. First,
had her husband come into the tent at any time prior to the death of Sisera it
may have been perceived as an act of adultery, and second, had the pursuing army
caught her hiding him they would have killed her. Despite the fact that neither
happened there still was the element of fear.
As a matter of fact, all of the aforementioned signs of courage are mentioned:
an internal factor of fear or phobia, an awareness of physiological changes in
response to some and it is almost assured that there was increased respiration,
heartbeat, blood pressure, higher production of epinephrine, pupil dilation,
increased sweating and decreased production of saliva all of which are
autonomic, non-voluntary. There was assuredly an external factor of perceived
danger as mentioned before. The pursuing army, the chance that she could get
caught by her husband or Barak with Sisera and even the possibility that she
could be raped or killed by Sisera in the chance that he was not sleeping.
Despite the fact that Jael was not fighting on the front lines, she was capable
of assessing the situation and making a sensible decision, the consequences of
which could have been death. She did not choose the path of the coward or as