The Roots of Moral Courage

“If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?” Growing up in the northeast, it was a frequent question asked by my parents and the parents of some of my friends. I had no clue where Brooklyn was, or what the big deal was about their stupid bridge. This was the foundation for developing my own understanding of what was important, not just what was easy. It is also my earliest memory of developing some capacity for critical thinking.

As early as 350 BC Aristotle defined courage as the balance between cowardice and rashness. He believed courage was a virtue, and was both an end in itself and a means to more wide ranging good. He also believed it was necessary for all other virtues.

A few thousand years later, Indira Ghandi agreed with Artistotle when she said, “Without courage you cannot practice any other virtue. You have to have courage–courage of different kinds: first, intellectual courage, to sort out different values and make up your mind about which is the one which is right for you to follow. You have to have moral courage to stick up to that–no matter what comes in your way, no matter what the obstacle and the opposition is.”

Moral courage seems in short supply these days. Malignant self-interest, tunnel vision about what is important and an unwillingness to tolerate discomfort when others disagree are all on the hit parade these days, especially in the political sphere. While researching this blog, I found most of the articles on moral courage were from the medical field and there were none to be found having to do with moral courage in politics. Sadly, it explains a lot.

Moral courage is rooted in values. As individuals and as a society we have to decide what is most important. The mark of a civilized society is how well it cares for those with the fewest resources, meaning those who are most vulnerable. It is an honorable value and one that seems in short supply. Anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked about the earliest indicator of civilized society. Her simple response was “a healed femur.” She went on to explain that when humans had the capacity to care for those who were injured or weakened for whatever reason, human evolution had progressed to the point of early civilization. We would do well to consider the modern equivalent of a healed femur in our time.

Courage is a desired response to physical danger and/or a commitment to stand on one’s beliefs. It is a desired trait for individuals who, despite fear of retribution, stand for what benefits the last, the least, and the lost. By definition it means a willingness to stand alone for the sake of a deeply held conviction. It is, in modern society, considered the pinnacle of ethical behavior. A capacity to face into difficult situations and hold the courage of one’s convictions is an admirable quality. It embraces integrity, honesty, respect, responsibility, empathy and compassion.

Kristen Renwick Monroe has spent the better part of twenty years researching the roots of moral courage through the eyes of altruists, philanthropists, recipients of the Carnegie Medal (awarded to civilians who perform exceptional acts of heroism)  and those who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.

Her research indicates that the “altruistic perspective” involves a particular way of looking at the world in which altruists see themselves as bound to others through their common humanity. She further discovered that this perspective is as much a part of their identity as their very skin. Those with this perspective have a cognitive menu that simply does not permit idly standing by while others are in need.

While all people (except sociopaths) have an innate ethical perspective, those with the “altruistic  perspective” have a more developed sense of these values. Here is where she turned to Holocaust rescuers and discovered they had self-images that were inclusive and broadly based. They also had a strong sense of agency, meaning they saw they had the capacity and responsibility to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others. Their sense of “us” and “them” was almost non-existent. There was no “them,” only us. In other words we are all in this together.

Moral courage is a learned attribute. And that may be one of the more hopeful comments on the topic. It is possible for people to exercise and develop moral courage in the same way that exercise develops muscles. It requires the practice of ethical principles in hypothetical situations. It requires mentorship and seeking out wise elders (who are not always older) who embody the qualities one is trying to learn or emulate. It also requires an organizational or group culture that values individuals’ ethical response to challenging situations. Moving away from group think, which encourages individuals to look the other way or redefine unethical actions as acceptable, is also a needed part of the cultural ethos for moral courage and decision making.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that we focus on our own moral courage and exercise the muscle of our deepest being for the sake of what is best for the greatest number of the most vulnerable among us. And, by the alchemy of grace, we will discover that acting with our own moral courage for the sake of others will be enough to change the world.