What is real courage? Who are the truly courageous in today’s society? The word has been making some notable appearances in political conversation lately. Last week, former United States Vice President Kamala Harris reappeared after months of silence since her election loss to speak to a gala dinner audience hosted by the Democratic organisation, “Emerge”. During her 16-minute speech, she would repeatedly mention the supposed “courage” of her political friends, her voters, and more or less anyone who does not like President Trump. Just a few days later, Trump’s former Vice President, Mike Pence, who famously fell out with his running mate over his certification of the 2020 election, would receive the “JFK Profile in Courage Award” for exactly this action (an award previously won by such paragons of courage as Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi).
According to a certain worldview, all of these people are courageous. This is the same view which dictates that people attracted to members of their own sex are courageous for telling everyone else about it, and that women are “strong and independent” simply because they work a job and are not married. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder: what indeed makes a person courageous? Does courage simply entail a not-strictly traditional way of life?
Aristotle did not believe so. In his words, “courage is a mean state on the subjects of fear and confidence”. In The Nicomachean Ethics, the Philosopher (as St Thomas Aquinas calls him) lists many kinds of courage, as well as sentiments which, though they may appear so, are not truly courageous. Courage is not, as he puts it, “confidence when about to be scourged”. Aristotle instead argues that “he who in the case of an honourable death, and under circumstances close at hand which cause death, is fearless, may be called courageous”.
Aristotle would argue that courage is not simply lack of fear or confidence in any situation. He wishes to show that there are some things at which man must tremble, and some to which he must stand up. Nevertheless, he does not call the man who fears disgrace courageous, despite the fact that he considers this a righteous and good fear (for its opposite would be shamelessness). Nor does he consider the man fearless in the face of poverty to be brave, since he believes this to be a universal standard, the antithesis of which would be cowardice. Rather, the man who faces death, the greatest evil, but does not fear it, because his death is a noble one, is courageous. Such a man overcomes the inherent fear of evil by his recognition of some good in it, and thus is courageous.
Death is, of course, the most extreme example. Nevertheless, people may show signs of less perfect courage in smaller actions throughout their lives. Unfortunately however – and perhaps Kamala Harris is in fact a victim to this mentality, even if she is also a perpetrator – the idea of courage has become twisted in modern society.
According to Harris, Americans show their courage by criticising President Trump’s tariffs, or accusing him of detaining US citizens without proper trial (an unfounded accusation and one born from a misused quote). However, none of these actions is in any way dangerous, and therefore cannot be courageous. In a country that still upholds and promotes the right to free speech (despite the efforts of many of the people whom Harris might call courageous), it is not perilous for a person to label tariffs as economically unbeneficial, or to inveigh against the deportation policies of the current administration. On the contrary, such condemnation is more likely to win applause than aspersion.
Courage does not come in the form of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez accusing Trump of encouraging racism or misogyny, nor does it take the shape of Bernie Sanders berating Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about baby onesies. True courage would be, for example, risking one’s life by actually infiltrating a real far-right organisation like the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Movement in order to take down the group from within, rather than mindlessly calling Trump and his cabinet Nazis.
In the case of Pence, while his conduct appears to have been one of respect and honour for his position, Aristotle would probably have declined from describing it as courageous. It is true that Pence was put under a threat of physical violence by some of the rioters who stormed the Capitol; nevertheless, this was in fact after he had made his decision and spoken to Trump regarding it, and he was in safety once again when he did certify the election. One could say that there was some physical courage involved in following through with the action. However, at the time, it did not appear that he was running any particularly substantial political peril, which is a great consideration as well. It was the tail end of Trump’s first term, when hatred for him had never been higher, not only amongst Democrats but even within his own party. The chances of Trump winning an election again appeared close to zero. Viewed in this way, to certify the election was probably easier than the alternative, which would have placed him on the bad side of a very angry American public, and incited the hatred of what was at the time the political majority. To describe this as an example of courage worthy of an award is simply another example of how modern ideas of what courage is have become detached from their true historical roots.
Jumping onto the popular train, no matter which direction it is going, is rarely courageous. All the people mentioned in Harris’ speech started pedalling their views most strongly during Biden’s presidency, when they were considered mainstream. Thus, there was no courage in their views at all, and the fact that they are holding on to them still is simply representative of the fact that much of their voter base is doing the same, in combination with a stubborn refusal to admit being wrong or appear like a leaf in the wind. Likewise, it should not be considered bold or courageous for a person to join the MAGA movement now that it is in power.
This does not mean that choosing to follow the popular side is cowardly or even necessarily wrong, but simply that it is not a brave thing to do by any real metric. Likewise, given the prevailing incentive structures, is it not courageous for people to continue shouting the same things at Trump that they have for eight years, especially when there is no real pushback against it.
The act of “coming out” as transgender may well have been a kind of “courageous” action at a certain time and in certain cultures, where one’s job or life may have been at risk. This does not necessarily mean that it should be considered morally good or socially acceptable, but it could nonetheless be called brave in a sense within such a situation. The courageous people are those who proclaim something they truly believe to be morally right in the face of danger; those who stood up to school authorities to protest sexual content being forced onto young children; those who questioned the mainstream vaccine narrative in the face of cancellation and extreme backlash; those who hold to their religion in countries where their life is actually put on the line by doing so; and even those who, after very nearly being shot through the back of the head, stand up, maintain their decorum, and throw their fist in the air in a resilient gesture.
Aristotle specifically mentions political courage in The Nicomachean Ethics, where he calls it, out of all the various subsets of the genus, “the most like true courage; for citizens seem to undergo dangers, on account of the rewards and punishments enacted by law, to avoid punishment and to obtain distinction”. Courage – or fortitude, as it is known to the Catholic Church – is an attribute to be promoted in today’s society, as it is sorely lacking in many circles. However, it should not be confused with weak-mindedness or plain obstinacy. Those who simply follow the current, whichever direction it goes, or who plant themselves stubbornly once it has changed, are not courageous. One final distinction should be made, however. Mere courage requires acting as one thinks in the face of backlash. Acting selflessly in the name of the truth, however, is heroism. The people political leaders should be acknowledging are those heroes who, when confronted with danger, harm, or even death, nevertheless stolidly and determinedly speak the truth.
____________________________________
Patrick Vincent is a Gript Contributing Writer, based in Dublin