Is Courage a virtue?

[AshRyan]

According to many ethical systems (particularly those of the ancients), courage is a cardinal virtue. It is not, however, one of those named by Ayn Rand in her account of virtue. What is courage, and how does it fit into the Objectivist ethics?

My thoughts on this so far are that courage could be defined as the loyalty to values in the face of significant opposition or danger. It could be classified as a minor virtue derivative of (or subsumed under) the virtue of integrity. Thoughts?

[Richard_Halley]

Courage is an ill-defined concept; in my opinion, it is an unnecessary one, as well.

Courage may be--and has been--defined as anything from fearlessness in defending ones values, to simply rushing into the face of death for no apparent reason.

The reason I call the concept "courage" unnecessary is that any virtues it could possibly entail are more simply laid out by other concepts (such as integrity and rationality).

[kesg]

According to many ethical systems (particularly those of the ancients), courage is a cardinal virtue.  It is not, however, one of those named by Ayn Rand in her account of virtue.  What is courage, and how does it fit into the Objectivist ethics?

My thoughts on this so far are that courage could be defined as the loyalty to values in the face of significant opposition or danger.  It could be classified as a minor virtue derivative of (or subsumed under) the virtue of integrity.  Thoughts?

In Galt's speech, Ayn Rand clearly regarded courage as a derivative or aspect of integrity, as "the practical form of being true to existence, of being true to truth..." This virtue plays a bigger role, or at least a more central role, in Aristotle's ethical system, but it essentially amounts to the same thing: the willingness to act in accordance with one's rational judgment regardless of the costs, pain, or hardships involved.

[AshRyan]

Courage is an ill-defined concept; in my opinion, it is an unnecessary one, as well.

Courage may be--and has been--defined as anything from fearlessness in defending ones values, to simply rushing into the face of death for no apparent reason.

The reason I call the concept "courage" unnecessary is that any virtues it could possibly entail are more simply laid out by other concepts (such as integrity and rationality).

I don't think we should dismiss it just because many people have misunderstood it or given poor definitions of it. (If that were the case, then almost every concept would be useless.) I think if we look at what gives rise to the concept, there are many instances in reality that we would describe as courage and mean something distinct from (or at least more specific than) integrity or rationality.

[Richard_Halley]

You are right Ash...

A concept should not be dismissed because it has been misinterpreted.

My point was that courage is no more than an application of other virtues.

[MinorityOfOne]

Sure, Halley, but all the virtues are just applications of rationality. There's a use for identifying more specific applications. The list of *all* virtues (not just the central ones) would be incredibly long: diligence, benevolence, prudence, etc... the list would be gigantic.

Incidentally, there are terms for the sort of "bad courage" you mentioned. Rashness, foolhardiness, etc.

[Richard_Halley]

Good point, MinorityOfOne.

[oldsalt]

So how would you define courage? Is it the active part of integrity, as in having the courage of one's convictions? Does having courage inherently factor in the element of fear, as in taking action in spite of fear? Does it necessitate an element of danger, as in action taken in the face of danger?

[kesg]

So how would you define courage?  Is it the active part of integrity, as in having the courage of one's convictions?  Does having courage inherently factor in the element of fear, as in taking action in spite of fear?  Does it necessitate an element of danger, as in action taken in the face of danger?

I would say that the essential is acting on what you know to be true. Things like danger or fear, when present, are essentially obstacles that one must overcome while so acting. So is any pain, cost, or effort involved.

[MinorityOfOne]

Off the top of my head, courage is acting with integrity when a major value is at stake or at risk.

[GCS]

AR discusses courage as part of the discussion of integrity in Galt's Speech. She calls it "a practical necessity" and writes that "courage is the practical form of being true to existence".

[RationalBiker]

I have heard courage described as:

the ability to act rationally or maintain rationality when fear would otherwise be the guiding motivation, and hence, likely less rationally.

I think several other examples on here reflect that definition.

VES

[mordecai]

Without courage, Hank Rearden would never had made Rearden metal.

Without courage, Dagny Taggart would never had made the John Galt line.

Courage is the ability to dare risks, and to be true to your convictions.

[Socionomer]

I would distinguish between moral courage and physical courage. Physical courage may or may not be a virtue, depending on the the reason for its demonstration.

[AshRyan]

AR discusses courage as part of the discussion of integrity in Galt's Speech. She calls it "a practical necessity" and writes that "courage is the practical form of being true to existence".

Oops. I guess it's time to re-read Galt's speech when I start asking questions here that are already addressed there. Thanks.

[AshRyan]

I would distinguish between moral courage and physical courage.  Physical courage may or may not be a virtue, depending on the the reason for its demonstration.

How exactly would you make that distinction, and why? What good is moral courage if you don't translate it into physical reality by acting on it? And if physical actions place you in danger without good reason, then wouldn't they be better classified as "rashness" than as "courage?"