Displaying Courage vs. Courageous Acts

Suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots aside, our discussion today in class still has me wondering about the distinction between displaying courage (or acting courageously) and performing a courageous act.  I am curious if the former could be said to be morally neutral, whereas the latter could not.  For example, Professor Silliman suggested that if he was pushed off of a cliff and landed on a would-be murderer, his body would have performed a courageous act, but he could not be credited as having acted courageously.  In this view, is the act considered courageous not just because it required some degree of courage (accidental or not) to perform, but also because it attained a good end?  Similarly, could we then say that a bank robber displays courage (morally neutral) in facing great danger and potential punishment, but that he or she does not perform a courageous act because they are pursuing bad ends?  

Fairness vs. Lawfulness

            An issue that I attempted to raise in my SLAP for this week (although I do not think that I expressed myself clearly enough) concerned Aristotle’s description of the relationship between fairness and lawfulness.  He states that fairness relates to lawfulness as a part to a whole.  He then uses this to say that everything fair is lawful, but not everything lawful is fair.  He also asserts that the same relationship applies to unfairness and lawlessness.

            My confusion has to do with how something could be lawful, but not fair, yet somehow not unfair, since everything unfair is lawless.  The reverse would also seem to cause an issue (i.e. something being lawless and not unfair, yet not fair).  Is it simply that there exists some significant gray area between fair and unfair, whereas the line between lawfulness and lawlessness is much sharper?  Or am I completely confusing Aristotle’s meaning?

            In my SLAP I came to the conclusion that the issue is simply a distraction from more important points that Aristotle is making.  However, I would still appreciate any helpful input that anyone might have. 

Lincoln and Happiness

            Our discussions over the past two classes (particularly today’s) have left me curious as to the connections between our two reading assignments.  In particular, I wonder how Lincoln, at least the Lincoln of the first few chapters, would measure up to Aristotle’s assessment of the good. 

It is tempting, given Lincoln’s clear tendency toward depression and a generally melancholy disposition, to argue that he would fall well short of Aristotle’s standard, which places happiness at the top of the hierarchy of goods.  However, it seems as though that would be based on overly simplified and superficial interpretations both of Aristotle’s meaning and Lincoln’s character. 

Given how we distinguished between the common understanding of happiness and Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, it seems fairer to ask whether Lincoln was living in such a way that his actions expressed virtue.  I’m having a hard time answering this question, as it seems that with Lincoln (as with most people) the answer is:  yes and no.  It does seem significant, though, that Lincoln apparently does not meet the criteria of “being well,” even though he is often “doing well.”  Obviously I am struggling, and would welcome anyone else’s input on the subject.