Courage refers to one’s bravery in times of fear or distress and bringing about an action that shows fearlessness and valour in a person. One may receive praise or applause for displaying bravery or showing courage at unexpected moments yet at the same time, there are people who are criticized for showing the same sort of grit and valour. Hence, people wonder whether or not courage can necessarily be seen as a virtue. Although courage may not be seen as virtuous if it is inflicted upon others instead, and no effective actions or solutions are seen, this essay agrees to a large extent that courage is in fact virtuous in the aspects of leadership, wars, and when one is fighting for a cause.
Courage is virtuous in the aspects of leadership as it is essential in order to carry out laws that may not be appreciated by others. As a leader, one has to do what is right and what is good for the betterment of people. However such may not be seen as popular or receive much support from the public should it not be what the public want or desire. As such, it takes courage to stand by-laws implemented for the good of people even if leaders may face ridicule and criticism from their own people. For example, changes in healthcare in the USA have caused many people to criticize Barack Obama’s administration even if these laws of increased self-reliance and less dependence on the government were meant to help people to be more responsible for their own well being and healthcare. Even so, Obama’s administration still stands by these laws displaying Obama’s courage while he leads his people despite the criticism he may face. Therefore, courage is a virtue in the area of leadership as it is essential in order to carry out laws that are necessary for the betterment of people.
However it may be argued that courage may not be a virtue should that courage inflict fear into others hence creating uncertainty and worry in others thus, it is not deemed as virtuous. Courage is termed when one chooses to ignore or target the fear that one feels and decides to take concrete actions because of the newly found courage to do something. As such, it would only be natural if one would choose to empower another person to take courage too. However, there are instances where people inflict fear upon others in times of difficulty and hardship. People do this to display their own bravery and honour and sometimes even their authority over other people. This then creates an element of fear and worry in their victims hence cannot be seen as virtuous but rather tyrant like and cruel. For example, the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks were empowered by their leaders to take courage and to fight for the good of their families and people so as to create a more utopian world to live in. They gained courage through influential speeches directed to them and even the provision of weapons to prove to them that they were more than capable to handle the job. Yet, at the same time, the newly found courage was used to create mass terror and fear among passengers in the hijacked aircraft. Thus, depicting them as cruel, heartless people rather than courageous people who gave up their lives so as to contribute to the betterment of their people. Although it took courage to take up arms and rage a war against the West through the 9/11 attacks, that courage was not perceived as virtuous or brave and was rather seen as impulsive, insensitive, and cold due to the loss of lives and fear instilled in the hearts of millions. Therefore, courage may not be deemed as virtuous when pain or despair is inflicted upon others instead.
Having mentioned that, courage is still seen as a virtue because courage displayed in times of war shows an unwavering commitment despite the dangers and risks posed hence is viewed as admirable and virtuous. In times of war, uncertainty runs high and a lot is at stake, especially the lives of innocent people. This is especially so when one puts his or her own life ahead of others so as to protect other people and to carry out a job that needs to be done. As such, due to the many dangers and risks posed to a person such as casualties and even death, courage in times of war is admirable. For example, the assassination of Osama bin Laden was deemed as one of the greatest counterterrorism victories of all time. This was so because the job was well done by US special forces, the naval SEAL who displayed immense courage even with the pressure to carry out the job successfully and to keep themselves alive and lit. Their courage was admirable because, despite the difficulties that they faced or treaded upon, they managed to successfully capture the most wanted terrorist in the world, thus receiving much praise for their valour because their discipline and commitment were seen as virtuous and something to be admired and modelled after. Although, it may be argued that these men are trained to be able to react to difficult situations such as these their courage can still be seen as virtuous because it shows, to give up their own life so as to save millions more thus is virtuous and courageous. Therefore, courage is a virtue, especially so as one’s life is at risk for the sake of many others.
Conversely, courage may not be a virtue if there are no real solutions or actions that help ease the current situation hence overriding the idea of courage being seen as a virtue. Even if one shows courage and bravery, if that bravery is not channelled to produce concrete actions for results, that courage would not be at no avail and would mean nothing especially if one has failed to carry out certain aims or goals planned in mind. Moreover, this may no longer be seen as a virtue but the person may not even be seen as courageous anymore but rather impulsive and impractical instead. For example, Gorbachev was praised for mustering the courage to improve relations with the West and USSR through reforms and plans. However, even with the courage mustered to save relational problems with the West and improve standards of living in USSR, his reforms such as perestroika and glasnost were not radical enough hence no real concrete or desirable actions were carried out. Whatsoever, not only did it cause a lower standard of living in USSR, Gorbachev lost the confidence of his people and his courage was no longer seemed like a virtue but rather a curse. Therefore it can be said that unless concrete actions or solutions are seen courage is not a virtue as it may very well be just as bad as not having any courage.
However, there is no doubt that courage is a virtue when one makes use of their courage to fight for the rights of others so as to help them and ease their pain or burden. When someone challenges the status quo, it is likely that he or she will come under scrutiny or even be ridiculed. Yet their courage is a virtue because they are pushing on so as to see through their plans to help others and improve their lives and even make a difference to the lives of the people they support. People like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther Jr. are famous not for the lives they led but by the number of people they inspired and touched through their valiant acts and were controversial yet acceptable especially when it was meant to help others. Whatever problems that they had on their hands, they managed to juggle that and successfully do what they set out to do. As such, their courage in times of complexity and wanting to improve the lives of others is seen as a virtue. For example, not only did Nelson Mandela have to protect his people, he had to fight the criticism and ridicule he faced while he was protecting the blacks. However, instead of ridiculing the whites for their lack of empathy and compassion, he tried to reconcile with them and to take a conciliatory role with them so as to bring about peace among all people in his nation. Hence, his courage is seen as virtuous because he was willing to run into an angry mob of unhappy people and to be criticized in order to fight for the rights of people, at the same time, make an effort to understand and reason with the whites which took him immense courage especially since his life and his family’s lives were at stake too. Therefore, his valiant acts are virtuous. Although it may be argued that Mandela could have chosen not to mediate with the whites he took the extra step and effort to take a compromising role with them further reinforcing the fact that his courage is virtuous and righteous. Thus, fighting for the rights of others is virtuous especially so when one does not need to do so and still chooses to so as to make a difference in the lives of others.
In conclusion, although it may be argued that courage may not always be seen as virtuous when pain is inflicted on others and brings about no concrete action, courage is still largely a virtue when one is expected to do what is politically right when one gives up his or her own life for others and fights for the well-being of others. Courage will always be present in times of hardship and fear but it is how people choose to display their courage and improve the lives of people around them. As C.S Lewis once said, “ Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point,… the point of highest reality.” Therefore, there is without a doubt that courage is, in fact, a virtue.