Does apathy equate to cowardice? Should the two be compared?

I don’t see any necessary relationship between them. I can see any of the following possible combinations existing:

apathetic and cowardly
apathetic and not cowardly
not apathetic and cowardly
not apathetic and not cowardly

So no, I don’t see how you can equate one with the other.

What’s the situation?

Apathy and cowardice are two separate realities. One must often be quite courageous to demonstrate a degree of apathy in the face of people brainwashed to believe apathy is cowardly.

In most cases I think apathy can be more closely aligned with intellectual laziness than with cowardice.
Either way I don’t care.

@nikipedia Just a hypothetical, really. Just seeing what you all think.

@Zendo I’m obviously biased here, but I agree.

@AstroChuck What if it was a situation that you’ve dealt with before, on numerous occasions? What say you?

Oh, right, you don’t care. :P

I think it would depend a lot on the circumstances.

“Cowardice” can be difficult to define outside of specific social contexts. In general terms, it is the perceived failure to demonstrate sufficient robustness in the face of a challenging situation. Cowards are usually seen to have avoided or refused to engage in a confrontation or struggle which has been deemed good or righteous by the wider culture in which they live.

In this definition by avoiding the issue through apathy would define cowardice however if one is battle weary- has been in the struggle and the fray and is emotionally spent and incapable of engaging in the cause then perhaps the term mental exhaustion is better suited.

Details of the ”..particular situation..” would be a help for comment.

That aside, a claim of apathy could be used as a cover for cowardice.

Okay, well let’s give an example (one that isn’t my own; various people I know read my answers, please understand that I wish to remain anonymous in that regards).

Throughout John’s life, he’s known women who have been raped. In each in everyone one of these scenarios, he’s chosen to help them through this difficult time, visited them, contacted authorities for them, helped capture the perpetrator, etc.

Let’s now say that after each case, he’s grown increasingly distant, to the point that he just don’t care any more. The stories no longer affect him the way they used to, and is world weary.

However, a casual friend confides in him and tells John that she is a rape victim – it happened the night before. He are emotionally spent, and is apathetic to the concept of “rape”. Regardless of what John ends up doing (help the girl, or just steer her in the right direction and let her deal with it), do you believe there is a point where it is fitting to call him a coward?

Again, this isn’t my personal situation in fact, I’m a bit hesitant to post this example, as it may steer the question from being an open one to being more directed so take that as you wish.

Oh, and to add to that, I firmly believe that apathy can lead to cowardice, as I said in the original question.

John’s lack of interest or emotional response could lead him to avoiding situations like these all together; he might run from them, as he doesn’t want to deal with the hassle.

That’s cowardly, in my opinion. I believe that’s a fair call.

@Grisaille: No, I think that’s taking too many liberties with what the word “coward” means.

I think the definition of coward hinges on refusing to do something out of fear (a strong emotion) whereas the definition of apathy means without any emotion (a = without + pathos = emotion). So by definition, you can’t be cowardly out of apathy, or apathetic out of cowardice.

I can see why someone would consider another a coward for being apathetic with regard to a particular issue, if they think that the cause of apathy is fear of the truth or of the consequences of taking a stand. For instance, a Southern politician in the mid-19th century who was privately in support of abolition but was afraid of the political consequences of this position and who therefore refrained from voicing his opinions and maintained outward apathy, could be termed a coward, as perhaps could one who was so conditioned against the idea that he suppressed it in his own mind. However, one cannot assume that fear is the cause of apathy; it could just as easily be intellectual laziness, as @AstroChuck says, or the result of a conscious decision to disregard the issue, often a legitimate stand to take, or it may not even be apathy but rather ambivalence.

@Jayne @Grisaille It could be a case of ’ concern fatigue ’. But not “cowardice” as has been proved otherwise by John, repeatedly.

@Grisaille- Give me an example scenario.

@nikipedia That’s rather interesting. But what if someone makes a conscious decision to dodge an issue (that he can solve and fully understands is larger than himself), so because he knows he doesn’t care about it?

I’m going way too into this, I know. But the conversation interests me.

@Jayne Agreed. You raise a great example.

Just as an addition to that, I find it striking that, often times, we consider cowardice to be a more personal term; apathetic, academic or professional.

Cowardice is when you want to do something about a situation, but fear stops you. Apathy is when the same situation, or similar ones, have presented themselves so many times that you really could care less.

Whoever called you a coward was projecting their own passions into the situation; what’s stopping them from addressing the problem?

@Grisaille: If he’s dodging because he doesn’t care about it, he’s not dodging it out of cowardice.

I think one important distinction that should be made is apathy versus inaction. One can choose not to act out of cowardice (@Jayne‘s secret abolitionist) but this inaction is not really the same as being apathetic out of cowardice.

@Grisaille- Nevermind. I don’t care.

@nikipedia; I agree; of the various cases I talked about, only two, the hypothetical subconscious suppression of opinion out of fear, and intellectual laziness, can really be considered true apathy. But for the situation of one person calling another a coward after that person has expressed apathy, it is really the outward appearance or claim of apathy that matters, not whether the person is truly apathetic (speaking in a general sense and not to Grisaille in particular, who really does appear to be apathetic).

@PandoraBoxx I’m going to disagree there.

Your examples hold true, but a coward can be someone who fears a situation and runs from it. As much as I’d like people to be as virtuous as my mind’s eye envisions them, that is not the case. We are all flawed.

Similarly, it’s my understanding that one does not need to experience a particular situation more than once to feel apathy towards it.

Lastly, I’m part of the situation, sadly; it isn’t a clean cut case where the person can just address it on their own, like that.

@nikipedia Very true.

However, let’s pose this scenario.

You are walking down the street and you see a beggar. She is decrepit, emaciated and appears to be on the verge of death. She weakly moves her hand to her mouth, motioning a request for food.

For three years, you’ve seen this at least twice a week and always give whatever you have in your pockets. You feed the people here, and, when you cannot, offer them money. You have now become naturally apathetic.

You know you have an apple in your backpack, but your body is weak from a long day’s work.

You walk past the woman.

For the next few weeks, you vow never to walk down that road again, and instead take a longer route through nearby suburbia. It’s 5 miles longer than your initial walk, but the convenience of never having to deal with that situation again makes it worth your while.

Could the initial inaction, coupled with your own intrinsic apathy, be considered cowardly?

At first, I think we’d all say no (it’s just selfish).

But looking past that, could we all realize the real reason that this hypothetical “you” would make such a decision such as this is because you are afraid of having to deal with the homeless. You may not care about their suffering, but are legitimately afraid of having to deal the situation at large, no?

Okay, I’m pushing this out of the bounds of reason, I know. I’m just playing devil’s advocate (a bad one, too) here, as the conversation is quite stimulating.

@AstroChuck Apathetic and and fickle. I want you to have my kids.

I suspect the word “coward” was used either to wound you or to spur you to action because it’s a word that is likely to provoke a strong internal reaction and not because its meaning is really applicable to the situation.

It’s the kind of epithet that people like to hurl when they think they can motivate you to do something to disprove it. I’ll bet your accuser never suspected it would motivate you to start a semantic discussion on Fluther.

@Grisaille: I mean, I’m still going to say that no, that’s not cowardice, but this has gotten to the point of being an arbitrary semantic distinction. (Nor do I think repeated exposure to horrible things necessarily breeds apathy…I think in some situations it can have exactly the opposite effect.)

It sounds like you accept that the definition of cowardice relies on inaction due to fear. Yeah? So this just invites the question—what counts as fear?

@Jeruba Funny thing is, I legitimately don’t care that I was called a coward.

Though I did think it was good question/convo starter, so I tossed it up on here.

@nikipedia That’s a great question in itself.

I believe that fear is concern of one’s own physical or mental health in the face of trial and adversity.

John is just probably bored with his job. I do not see your idea of him being a coward.

Apathy is definitely not cowardice. It only means that the topic is much more important to the person calling you a coward than it does to you.

Perhaps it’s a sense of postmodern disenfranchisement. There is a certain level of disconnection that would more accurately describe the examples above.