Cowardice vs. Pragmatism

I realize that a topic very similarly titled existed prior to this one, but what I would like to discuss is not whether a specific character I am writing is a Dirty Coward, but what exactly constitutes a Dirty Coward in the first place, and what differentiates one from a simple pragmatist.

A recurring problem with this trope seems to be that no one on this wiki seems to be able to agree on a definition of "cowardly" behavior. For some, it's as simple as having and maintaining an "unfair" advantage over an opponent or not allowing them to "fight back". For others, it's abandoning someone to a terrible fate just to save your own life, etc. But these actions could also be considered as a mattter of survival, pure instinct if nothing else.

Take, for example, Brian Jeremy, a character who I believe to epitomize the core concept of the Dirty Coward, but who I also think in some ways is simply pragmatic. First, let's go over the reasons why Jeremy could be considered a coward:

1. To begin with, Brian completely lacks self-confidence, a trait that's illustrated not by him avoiding fights, but by him being an insufferable Yes-Man. He can barely go a single sentence early in the DLC without kissing Billy Grey's ass, right down to parroting what he says. Brian simply crumbles in the face of adversity without somebody to protect him, and he knows full well that the rest of the Lost MC would probably tear him apart if Grey wasn't around, which is exactly what happens when Grey gets sent to prison.

2. When Brian and his faction begin waging a Civil War against Johnny and Jim, he doesn't run when he starts losing the battle, he runs before the battle even gets going, completely abandoning his supporters to their fate.

3. Most damningly, when confronted by Johnny the following mission and held at gunpoint, Brian begs for his life, calling Johnny his "brother" and swearing to leave town and disappear if he's spared. If Johnny does spare him, Brian shows up one cutscene later, where he stabs him in the back by luring him into a trap, and gets killed for good.

Does all this make Brian Jeremy a coward? Sure. But from a pragmatic standpoint, it's somewhat justified, albeit to a very small degree.

1. Comparing the two physically, there's absolutely no way Brian could take Johnny in a "fair" fight. The only way for him to win is to get the drop on an opponent, or use hired muscle. I don't find either strategy morally unsound in and of itself.

2. I actually thought that Brian leading Johnny into an ambush and catching him off-guard was a pretty clever tactic. If the roles were reversed (and Brian's character were considerably rewritten to be more likeable), he could be easily seen as a Guile Hero.

So, with all this in mind, what do you think is the real difference, if any, between pragmatism/pure survival instinct and cowardice? Is it simply a matter of perspective and how sympathetic the author is to the behavior, or is it something else?

If you need more information on Grand Theft Auto IV The Lost And Damned, you may want to try these videos.

edited 24th Aug '13 10:15:41 PM by Robotnik

It's more of an audience thing than anything else, though it will also depend on the situation and the behavior of the character in question. You could say it's the difference between a character running because he's afraid or running because he knows he can't take who he's up against. I don't think it's difficult to portray the former (have the character scream in fear, etc), and not portraying it is a good way to go in the other direction.

It might be a good idea to bring this up in your work if the character you're writing is on a team. Have some of the members argue about whether he was smart or scared and whether he deserves to stay on the team as a result. The lines can indeed be blurry sometimes. But I do think you're probably going to have to provide more detail about what you're writing if you want any more ideas.

I think there's a lot of overlap, and I'd agree with Devious Recital that usually the character's mindfulness is really the only thing separating the two.

Another factor to consider might be if any hypocrisy is involved in the character's actions. For me to really view a character as a coward, the story first has to set them up otherwise.

I think "hypocrisy" hits the nail right on the head, along with the discussion about personal motives. I'm no professional psychologist, but I believe there's three factors that, when combined, add up to that quality we call "cowardice":

1. Selfishness: Always putting their own well-being first and never showing true concern for others.
2. Dishonesty: Makes promises with no intentions of keeping them if breaking them would give them an advantage.
3. Insecurity: A fundamental, non-situational lack of confidence in their own abilities to keep themselves safe in dangerous situations.

Any given person can be pragmatic, cowardly, both, or neither. The two aren't strictly exclusive.

edited 26th Aug '13 12:50:25 PM by Specialist290

Putting your own survival before the needs of others is cowardice.

Pragmatism also implies some sort of logic behind their actions, cowardice can be completely moronic (and it often is). Pragmatism would be the Evil Overlord ordering a well-organized retreat when he realizes the odds are against him, cowardice would be the Evil Overlord just deciding to go Screw This, I'm Outta Here and leaving his army in disarray to be butchered.

In a nutshell (which, I realize makes it pretty unreliable since it's a complicated question):

• The hallmark of a pragmatist is that they are practical — they do what they do primarily because it works.
• The hallmark of a coward is that they are afraid — they do what they do primarily because it's the safest choice for them.

edited 26th Aug '13 3:41:50 PM by Madrugada

At 2, if running from battle, begging for mercy, waiting until Johhny's guard was down to knife him were all part of a master plan, while I wouldn't call it the most pragmatic plan ever, if it works it works. If this was all him jumping around from one scenario to the next like a scared chicken, then I would definitely call if cowardice. Just an incredibly lucky coward. If that had been a military setting, then he could very well have criminally charged him with cowardice and executed him for it.

That's a big Double Standard on the part of the "others" then. How come it's cowardly not to help someone else, but it's completely fine to demand help in the first place and act as if you're entitled to it? What makes you so special that another person is obligated to put themselves at any risk?

edited 27th Aug '13 2:10:35 PM by Robotnik

You're missing the point. Not helping someone who's at risk because it might cost you your own life is cowardly, but asking for help from someone when your life is already at risk is not, regardless of how much of an ass it makes you look like. Cowardice is about avoiding dangerous situations out of fear. If you're already in a dangerous situation, asking for help to get yourself out of it isn't cowardly because you're not trying to avoid anything. If anything it's more pragmatic, whereas a coward would more likely accept that he's dead and not act, if it is possible to be cowardly in a situation like that, anyway.

Asking for help in itself isn't cowardly, but it could be if you only ask for help because you're too afraid to put yourself at risk and would rather make someone else put their life on the line. On the other hand, saying, "Could you help me out here?" can mean a person is pragmatic and/or humble enough to recognize they can't do everything on their own.

Also, you can ask for help without acting like you're entitled to it.

I've heard it argued that putting your own survival first enables you to better provide for those you care for or who depend on you.

Which means that running like fuck to live to help your family is actually more laudable than needlessly risking their security.

Cowardice is spoiling for a fight, acting all tough and such but having no intention of following through but expecting others to either bail you out or reap the results of your posturing.

e.g. There was a guy that my friends and I knew who started trash talking a bunch of guys on the strength of the fact that we were nearby to, in his mind, do his fighting for him. In this, he was really not much different than most politicians or royals (except he wasn't in a position to command us do his dirty work for him).

Once we saw what he was doing, we left - not desiring to get into any fights, let alone one he'd instigated.

He saw us leaving - and beat us not only out the door but up the street by a considerable distance.

With regard to other situations where risk is suddenly there, if there's a clear escape route then taking it is not cowardice, it's intelligence and pragmatism - get out of danger with as little risk to yourself as possible.

If the escape routes are blocked, then dispose of the easiest blockage as swiftly as possible and then make for the tall timber - same concept applied.

If removing that blockage means injuring, incapacitating or even killing someone, then such is life.

Of course, in a war situation, the "clear escape route" is most likely the one that's mined, ambushed or both and only exists so you think you have a chance of escape and won't fight as desperately. The trick there is not to be fooled and fight as desperately as fuck to carve a new escape route straight through the weakest part of the enemy's forces.

The hypocrisy is the main indicator of cowardice. The tough talk followed by the inclination to run like hell when shit gets real and/or leave others to deal with the mess - like that guy I mentioned and the average Prime Minister/Premier/President/King/Queen.

Cowardice gave us "Dolce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mori" - Latin for "I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest and then you unimportant people can go to war on my behalf while I sit here safe and sound" (gotta give those Romans points for being so succinct)

Every politician/royal that ever rattled a sabre, secure in the knowledge that they would not be the one bleeding out on the battlefield, is a coward. Every General/politician that uttered the words "acceptable losses" in all seriousness, is a coward. Every two-bit punk that said "what the fuck you lookin' at, cunt" only because his mates were standing behind him is a coward.

The person thrust into the thick of things who sees the way to get out with minimal risk and does so, is pragmatic. And there's always the option that the pragmatist will have to fight his/her way out of some situations.

edited 27th Aug '13 3:52:18 PM by Wolf1066

Yes, you are. You're trying to avoid the consequences, or whatever would happen if you didn't ask for help. In the most exremes cases, you would be asking others to put their own lives at risk to save yours, because you're afraid to die.

And I hesitate to say that's an entirely unjustifiable sentiment, but it's based on selfish fear as much as refusing to help someone in danger is, regardless. I don't get why some displays of fear should be "cowardly" and identical displays of fear should not just be accepted, but indulged.

That definition makes the most sense to me.

edited 27th Aug '13 4:09:34 PM by Robotnik

I wouldn't make the claim that it's identical. From my perspective, it takes some bravery in and of itself just to accept that you can get out of a tight situation and acting on it instead of giving in, even if help is required. You may not share the same sentiment, but again, these lines are blurry. It could easily fall into both cowardice and pragmatism simultaneously depending on the situation.

It might be cowardice to make someone else fight your battles while you do nothing but stick your head in the sand, but asking for help doesn't necessarily entail standing on the sidelines. "Help me do this" isn't the same as "do this for me."