Every man for himself.

In the comments to the previous post, about the Cuauhtémoc disaster, Old and slow said: "They could see the collision coming. I don't understand why the sailors stayed up on the yardarms."

I asked Grok, "Were they courageously holding their formation? Were they waiting for a command?" and guessed that no such command was given because the men could not have scampered down all at once. Grok observed: "Staying in place, secured by harnesses, may have been safer than attempting to climb down without clear instructions.... Naval operations prioritize collective action over individual initiative in emergencies.... The sailors likely held their positions to avoid creating additional hazards, trusting their officers to issue appropriate commands."

My inclination was to credit the sailors with courage, but Grok thought it was more likely a matter of "duty and discipline." If adhering to duty and discipline doesn't count as courage, are we systematically lying to ourselves and others and engaging in sentimentalism and propaganda when we speak of courage in the military? And why would it be less courageous to unclip the harness and attempt to descend?

In writing my question for Grok, I thought of the expression "Every man for himself." Is that a command ever given in the navy? Grok said — full Grok answers here — that's not a formal command in the naval tradition. But then why do I know that phrase? Where does it come from?

A 1540 English text references a similar sentiment in a proverb, “Every man for himself, and God for us all”.... [I]n Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale (late 14th century), a character uses a version of it, “everich for himself.” By the 19th century, it appeared in novels like Frederick Marryat’s Peter Simple (1834), describing sailors in a storm. Its dramatic flair made it a staple in adventure tales and historical accounts of disasters like the Titanic (1912), where some reports exaggerated individualistic survival attempts. Today, it’s used both literally (e.g., in emergencies) and figuratively (e.g., in competitive settings like business or sports, where individuals prioritize personal gain).... It’s a cliché in movies, books, and TV shows about survival, disasters, or betrayals.... The phrase is part of English vernacular, often used jokingly or hyperbolically, like saying “It’s every man for himself!” when grabbing the last slice of pizza.... It’s passed down through generations via storytelling, proverbs, and casual speech, making it feel instinctive even if you’ve never witnessed a true “every man for himself” moment.

When I thought of the phrase in connection with the Cuauhtémoc it was to contemplate how much worse it would be if that many people, in that kind of position, suddenly prioritized self-preservation. But now, I wonder, when, if ever, is "Every man for himself" the best rule?