Is courage always a virtue?

[Radrook]

Some say that courage is always a virtue regardless of what it is employed in. I say it is not.

Perhaps it is a matter of the criterion we are using. Philosophers create their own criteria and formulate moral philosophies governed by such.

I would say that if a man is courageous but uses that courage to kill innocent people then his courage is somehow tainted.

On the other hand it might be viewed as misguided courage.

Is misguided courage a virtue then becomes the question.

Which of course forces us into defining virtue.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Define courage while you're at it. A lot of what passes for courage is stupidity one happens to live through.

 

[Radrook]

Define courage while you're at it. A lot of what passes for courage is stupidity one happens to live through.

The stupidity you mentioned is classified by Aristotle as "foolhardiness"

Here is how Aristotle had it set up:

Cowardice----Courage----Foolhardiness


The first "cowardice" and the last "foolhardiness" he called vices.
The middle one, courage, he called a virtue.
Aristotle did this with all the virtues and vices.
Told us to aim for the middle where the virtue is to be found.


Here is a dictionary definition:

Merriam Webster's Dictionary
Main Entry: cour·age
Pronunciation: 'k&r-ij, 'k&-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English corage, from Old French, from cuer heart, from Latin cor —more at HEART
Date: 14th century
: mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Following the dictionary definition, then, I would call it neither vice nor virtue, but merely a tool to be used for either vicious or virtuous ends.

 

[Dancing David]

Something about the courage to accept the things I can not change.

Some times it takes more courage to be patient than to act. But killing people is not generaly courage.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Courage is a useful personality trait. As such, it can be seen as a virtue. As most other personality traits it can be used for non-virtuous things. We should keep things apart, however; using your courage to do wrong is a vice, but it does not make the courage itself a vice.

Hans

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Some say that courage is always a virtue regardless of what it is employed in.

Who said that? Anyone we would recognize?

I say it is not.

Do you imagine for a moment that you are somehow unique, in having figured this out?

 

[Benguin]

Just because courage may be a virtue doesn't mean the action that took the courage is in itself virtuous, least of all merely because it took courage.

In the same way that stupidity or even malice may not always have entirely negative outcomes.

Action A involved courage
Action A was executed
Courage is considered a Virtue
therefore Action A is a virtuous action

I think it's a compositional fallacy, but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Radrook]

Further clarification:

All replies are appreciated except perhaps the irrelevant ad hominem. But for the benefit of those using ad hominem instead of dealing with the issues, here is some further info on the matter which might make it possible to leave ad hominems behind and focus on the subject as expected.

The argument that courage remains a virtue even though its purpose might be foolish, or ignoble, or criminal is an old philosophical concept applicable not only to courage but to all other virtues such as honesty, and perserverence for example. If a person is honest, or posesses perserverence, then from some persons viewpoint he possess a virtue regardless of how it is used.

It is comparable to a person having hands.
Hands are good in themselves.
But they can be misused.
Now, does having hands become evil because the person having them misuses them. Having hands is still good. It is the person misusing the hands that is flawed in some other aspect of his personality which causes him to misuse his hands which of themselves are good based their inherent utility.

Hope that clears things up for those who have no philosophy background and therefore choose to attack personalities because of inability to deal with the subject philosophically.



To those staying in focused on the subject, thank you.

 

[Radrook]

Something about the courage to accept the things I can not change.

Some times it takes more courage to be patient than to act. But killing people is not generaly courage.

I agree 100%
It takes more courage to remain patient than to fly off the handle.
That's why so many people fly off the handle instead of being patient. It is the path of least resistance and we have a strong tendency to follow it and pay the consequences.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You said:

" Some say that courage is always a virtue regardless of what it is employed in. "

I asked:

" Who said that? "

Or did you just make it up, for the sake of philosophical discussion?
The reason I ask, is, I don't know anyone who thinks courage is always a virtue..


Regarding ' ad hominem '.. Where has it occured in this thread?

Your paranoia is showing.

 

[Radrook]

Courage is a useful personality trait. As such, it can be seen as a virtue. As most other personality traits it can be used for non-virtuous things. We should keep things apart, however; using your courage to do wrong is a vice, but it does not make the courage itself a vice.

Hans

That's the generally accepted view.
To illustrate we can compare courage with truth.
Truth is a good since it adheres to reality.
Yet truth can be used in the service of injustice.


For example:
A person is hiding from a homocidal maniac,
The maniac requests to know where the man is.
He is told the truth.
The maniac murders the man.
Truth though a good in itself has been misused.

BTW
Thanks for staying on subject.


In this instance and similar ones, truth in itself remains a good though it is being misused.

 

[Benguin]

I agree with that interpretation.

I wonder, would we suggest the guys who flew the planes into the WTC needed courage to do that? Or does the amount of hate and religious self-delusion mean courage (in the true sense) wasn't needed?

My striking memory of courage in the positive sense from that day is the pictures of the firemen walking up the stairwells as civilians evacuated downwards, BTW.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I agree with that interpretation.

I wonder, would we suggest the guys who flew the planes into the WTC needed courage to do that? Or does the amount of hate and religious self-delusion mean courage (in the true sense) wasn't needed?

My striking memory of courage in the positive sense from that day is the pictures of the firemen walking up the stairwells as civilians evacuated downwards, BTW.

I would say that, by the definition Rad quoted above, the 9-11 hijackers were courageous. They demonstrated the mental strength to persevere in the face of danger. I would say the hate and religious self-delusion fueled the courage, not replaced the need for it.

And ditto on the firemen.

 

[Iacchus]

Truth is only virtuous so long as it keeps the good in context.

 

[Radrook]

I agree with that interpretation.

I wonder, would we suggest the guys who flew the planes into the WTC needed courage to do that? Or does the amount of hate and religious self-delusion mean courage (in the true sense) wasn't needed?

My striking memory of courage in the positive sense from that day is the pictures of the firemen walking up the stairwells as civilians evacuated downwards, BTW.

In order to prove that the terrorist behavior was not genuine courage and that the behavior of the firemen was genuine courage, we would need to show a difference between the two behaviors in relation to the definition of what courage is.

If we can show that one behavior does not fit in with the definition while the other does, then we can legitimately make a substantiated claim that one group displayed courage while the other group did not display it.

The question here is actually whether motivational reasons disqualify actions as coming under the classification of courage.
Were the Gestapo courageous?
Was Hitler courageous?
Or did their motives disqualify them?

If we say that the motives did, then we would have to show just how the motives make their behaviors not fit in with the definition of what courage is.

 

[Benguin]

Actually I think Marquis C is right ... I was just positing an extreme example for discussion.

As for Hitler and the Gestapo, I'm not sure where the courage comes in before we get on to the moral issues.

Hitler himself didn't even have the courage to face up to the judgement call and shot himself. In terms of military conduct, he generally used a combination of overwhelming force and picking on demonstrably weaker opponents (an entirely valid approach, involving neither courage nor stupidity).

The Gestapo as an entity, I'm not sure, but individuals and individuals in Hitler's armies I'm sure did demonstrate immense courage at times, and I'm sure not all their acts can have been morally repugnant. Defending their own country from invasion by allied forces (knowing what would happen) was brave compared to turning and running.

I think courage is separate from issues of ethics. It does, however, rely on you being aware and prepared for the risks you face. There may be moral implications in that accountability.

 

[Radrook]

Actually I think Marquis C is right ... I was just positing an extreme example for discussion.

As for Hitler and the Gestapo, I'm not sure where the courage comes in before we get on to the moral issues.

Gestapo units fought to the very end in the defense of Berlin.
Most people don't have the courage to shoot themselves in the head because they fear death.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Strange, I always though to suicide as being a coward's way out of a situation, in most cases. In Hitler's case, it was cowardly.

 

[Benguin]

Strange, I always though to suicide as being a coward's way out of a situation, in most cases. In Hitler's case, it was cowardly.

I agree. Especially in the case of Hitler (and suicide bombers) they see suicide as an easier alternative to facing reality and being held to account.