3) Is it honorable or stupid to carry on a fight against overwhelming odds? Is honor more important that life itself?
Humans, throughout our history, have had a romantic fascination with willpower. The erotic idea of perseverance until death has been embraced by every society since our beginnings. Some consider it to be a test of manhood – who is the strongest? Others consider it a representation of the beauty of humanity – the ability to think for oneself, to make decisions on the fly. Some people consider it a test of morality – who is the most loyal? And some even see it as art – a human in its natural form, balancing the struggle to survive and the smartest decision with self-imposed morals and love for others. Of course, as always, there is the other side. Is it stupid to fight until death, when you could preserve your life, and possibly others? Is the perseverance of carrying on a fight against overwhelming odds proof of mankind’s natural warlike instincts? It is further proof of society’s embracement of perseverance until death when people shoot down these lingering questions. You see, I believe that humans want the idea to be true, they make it to be true. There is a human need to fulfill these fantasies, to prove that man is intelligent, strong, and brave. The most obvious way to prove these romantic adjectives is through the very subject that this paper is about – perseverance against odds. But why? The best explanation is that when we describe man as brave, strong, and intelligent, we describe ourselves. It is that yearning to instill self-confidence that makes us describe humanity, often spuriously, as supreme beings. There is no denying that we are the strongest, most intelligent life on Earth. But the reason has little to do with whether we are the most dominant life on earth. It is actually a battle we’ve created within ourselves, collectively, as humans. The battle of truth. Although we believe ourselves to be the strongest life on Earth, we own a large number of weaknesses that other species on Earth do not. Our intelligence has led to more faults, most importantly self-confidence. Do other species need the self-imposed worthiness that we, as humans, so desperately require? Through our intelligence, we have discovered our deepest weaknesses – most namely fear. So we fear ‘fear’. In our fears we lose self-confidence, as we worry not about the fear itself, but rather that we will never get over it. There is a lot of truth to the cliché, “nothing is ever as bad as it seems.” Fear does not consume us, but rather the feelings of fear do. Over time humans have started to rival fear (or, in some cases, become fear itself, but that is another topic), as our intelligence has proved to us that fear can be overcome, even if our feelings don’t agree. The most obvious way to rival fear is to be it’s opposite, to become unfearful. This brings me back to the very beginning – where I asked why humans are fascinated by perseverance (a.k.a. bravery) against odds (a.k.a. fear). Perseverance, overcoming odds, is the most noble of ways to rival fear. When one can do this, one does not fear anymore. You see, this is not about what humans fear, but rather why humans fear. In our actions we have subconsciously discovered answers that our conscious intelligence has not realized. We have discovered that perseverance (bravery) against odds (fear) is what leads us above our fears. Now that we have established the reason behind humanity’s fascination with perseverance, we can now go back to the initial question, “Is it honorable or stupid to carry on a fight against overwhelming odds?”.
This is a rather hypothetical question, dependent on the external factors surrounding the situation. How lopsided is the fight? Who are you fighting? What are the risks? What are the reasons for fighting? I believe that honor is as much of an adjective as beautiful or ugly, they do not tell much. Honor, like beauty, belong in two separate categories: what others think of you, and what you think of yourselves. You see, upon first glance, this question asks whether you see it honorable or stupid when other people continue fighting against overwhelming odds. If you take the question and make it about yourself, the question changes. Is it honorable or stupid to yourself to continue fighting against overwhelming odds? The first question is obviously up to the discretion of others, which affects some people more than others. Some people make every decision based on what others thinks, and some people rarely consider other’s opinions. Ultimately, though, we all consider other’s thoughts to some degree when we make decisions. The first version of the question (is honorable or stupid when others continue fighting against overwhelming odds) has already been answered yes, society finds it honorable to continue fighting. The second version of the question, however, is much harder to answer and much more important. Is it honorable to yourself to continue fighting against overwhelming odds? This, of course, is a difficult question to answer because, as I have previously stated, humans naturally consider other people’s opinions when they make decisions. To answer this question, one must think only of themselves. Do people give themselves honor? I believe that the answer is no, honor only exists around outside forces. True, we all have morals, which many consider to be a measure of self-honor, but morals are different than honor. When one follows their own moral codes, they may feel as if they are honoring themselves, but they are actually honoring others. You see, people, by themselves, do not need honor, because they are comfortable with themselves. One does not feel honor because there is nobody around, and, reversely, one does not feel ashamed because there is nobody around. Essentially, this whole topic is one of many controversies in the great “man vs. society” argument. Since I have decided that honor cannot relate to the second variation of the question, we are left with “stupid”. This, I have determined, is the answer. My opinion is that it is best to keep fighting against overwhelming odds only, and only if, the risks of retreating are greater than the risks of continuing fighting. Otherwise it’s stupid. Ultimately, I believe that whichever way leads to the most favorable outcome is the correct way, and the other way is stupid. Most of the time that way will not be to continue fighting. If, however, you are going to be giving up personal liberties or peace for your loved ones, then one should unquestionably continue fighting. Martin Luther King Jr., a man I deeply admire for his wisdom, courage, and leadership, once said, “A man who won't die for something is not fit to live”. This quote is the epitome for why one should continue fighting against overwhelming odds. Dr. King however, never suggested that one must continue fighting to “be fit to live”. Consider this quote – “The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.” Dr. King, at first, appears to be contradicting himself, but actually what he is saying is that one must determine whether to continue fighting against overwhelming odds not because of nobility or honor, but because of unconditional love for themselves and others. Perhaps the most fitting quote was written by Dr. King in his book “Why We Can’t Wait” (1963). Dr. King wrote, “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” You see, not only can retreating not destroy your life and others, it can also provide an opportunity to consider a non-violent approach in which enemies can understand each other and work on ways to coexist. This may only seem hypothetically possible, but consider the results of the Civil Rights Movement in which Dr. King played such a large role in. The civil rights fighters had the opportunity to fight against overwhelming odds, but they decided instead to protest peacefully, instead of hating the enemy, they loved them – to the point where their enemies became their brothers. Yes, the Civil Rights Movement did turn violent in several situations, however, this was over necessity, not stupidity. Sometimes the best option is to continue fighting against overwhelming odds (a much larger white population and armed officers and police dogs in the case of the Civil Rights Movements). But as the Civil Rights Movement showed us, fighting is not the best option, peace is. That is why I believe that one must decide whether to continue fighting against overwhelming odds based on whichever result will lead to the most peace and the least casualties.
