Thomas Thiers
RELSTY 204G
Tuesday October 3rd 2006
Let me start my reasoning process by this definition of the
virtue of courage: Being courageous is giving one's safety for something bigger
than oneself.
Let's take the example of a firefighter, Joe, who has been
trained for and who feels it is his job to jump into the flames to save a life.
When faced with a rescue mission, Joe doesn't even take the time to consider
what he is about to do; he automatically grabs his helmet and runs to rescue
victims trapped by flames. Can one say that Joe exhibits perfect courage? His
action is certainly admirable but his behavior is triggered and backed by an
exhaustive training. After all, Joe has been drilled to jump into danger; it is
something he does as part of his job somewhat "automatically" without much prior
consideration. What would make a similar display of courage more admirable?
I believe that if one takes the time to think about his
action, for example to consider the pain of dying in the flame, then the
decision to act in face of danger becomes a conscious one. Being fully aware of
the risks in a dangerous situation instead of instinctively running into it is
more admirable. Therefore, a better definition of being admirably courageous is:
A deliberate decision to risk personal safety for a higher principle. But What
if the decision is not motivated by an admirable quality?
Consider Mike, a young man who lost his father in the
terrorist attacks of September 11. Mike decides to join the army, on the
surface, so that such tragedies do not happen again. He is very aware that he
could be killed in the war but he has made a deliberate decision to risk his
safety for what he deems higher than himself. However, suppose that Mike's
motivation to risk his safety is not completely admirable because his courage is
based on a desire to avenge his father. That is, Mike's courage is not the most
admirable because although it is aimed at a noble goal, it fuels on a negative
intention. Clearly one cannot be fully admirably courageous if one's motives
reside in darkness. So a better definition of courage would be: A dangerous
deliberate decision motivated by benevolence. Yet what if the decision is
motivated by values outside of oneself?
Let us suppose that Bill chooses to go to war for the same reasons as Mike but
that he does not harbor any desire for revenge; that is, Bill is a purely
benevolent person. However, suppose that he wants to go to war because he has
been told all his life that fighting for one's country is the most honorable
thing a man can do. Bill joins the armed forces to embody this image of
goodness. Wouldn't his courage have been more admirable if he had critically
arrived to his own conclusions toward what is the most honorable thing a man can
do? That is, even if the motivation to brave danger is a positive one, it is
less admirable if it simply reflects a popular belief rather than if it is being
fueled by an ideal someone has personally created. Showing courage by doing
something everybody agrees is courageous is less admirable than showing courage
toward something that matters to us personally, no matter what the general
public may think. Taking this into consideration, I refine my definition in this
manner: Being admirably courageous must include a dangerous deliberate decision
motivated by a benevolent personal system of values.
At this point I feel a need to clarify the notion of danger
presented in the statement above. Imagine a situation calling for courage, like
going to war to save the murdering of one's countrymen. The level of threat two
persons having decided to fight will experience will necessarily differ. In such
a case, what makes one decision more admirable than the other?
Suppose that David's decision to fight is facilitated by his
strength, his self-confidence, and his skills in combat. On the other hand,
consider Jean who also decides to engage in hostilities but who is meek, afraid,
and doesn't know the first thing about fighting. Clearly Jean's resolve is
displaying a more admirable kind of courage. This example shows that the more
vulnerable a danger makes one feel, the more admirably courageous that person is
in braving it. My definition of courage must then include a zeal to brave
vulnerability. But what makes this zeal admirable? What motivates it?
By personally recognizing the necessity to go to war, Jean
realized that her usual meekness was an inadequate quality to display in such a
situation. Suppose that she had decided instead to stay home, to remain meek,
and to let the more skilled David types do the job. Jean would have felt a
traitor to herself. By deciding to go to war, we can see that something inside
Jean pushed her to adjust her normal behavior. It is not so much that she was
courageous for going to war because she felt it was the right thing to do, but
that she was courageous for changing an old comfortable psychological structure
in her. That is, her motivation was not so much externally fueled but
internally. One could say that she was fighting the "right kind of war", the one
that matters to the development of her psyche.
Jean realized a contradiction in herself: her benevolence for
her countrymen was impaired by her fear of becoming a new Jean. Her self clung
to her old meek and safe ways but she recognized that a higher mode of being
needed to be called forth in order to remain true to herself. Something within
motivated Jean to move beyond her old self; that is what made her courage
admirable. The affirmation of deeper energies within herself characterizes her
courage. The responding of a call for self-renewal then characterizes admirable
courage. What more precisely are these forces calling Jean to self-renewal? Why
was she moved by them?
I believe that Jean, when surrounded in the fear to change
her old ways, suddenly sensed that her real life laid in the self she needed to
become. She realized that a more divine experience of her own life hinged on the
moving toward what inside called her to a higher life. Maybe her empathy for her
countrymen at this point was mixed with a love for the realization of her inner
potential. In any case, that love or loyalty toward what she feels is the source
of her life, toward what she knows will renew her and her experience of life is
a core aspect of admirable courage.
Her love or loyalty could better be defined as the openness of her heart toward
the forces of her own life or toward the experience of feeling truly alive.
Remember that if she had decided to stay home, she would have felt dead to her
own life, imprisoned in a refusal to move forward. Ideally, in moving toward
this deeper aspect of her self, Jean is able to feel invigorated and not
threatened by the dangers of life. Both the horrors of war and her internal
challenge to self-renewal are made surmountable through the love of her self to
be, through the love of what she has not yet become and will never totally
become, but toward that "thing" which is calling her inside. Her loyalty for
this "thing", which is the mechanism of the renewal of herself, manifested in
her actions is what is admirably courageous.
Thus far, to near perfect courage, one must first have been
transfixed by a realization of where one's real life lays. Having found it, this
ground will require us to modify our former selves so that we may live as
harmoniously as possible with it. The dangers lay in the resistance to change
but these can be surmounted by a loyalty and love for that which we feel is our
real life. Living life in any other way is not being loyal to the forces that
make one feel alive, our true self. To strive to live life in this manner,
toward its own source, is admirably courageous.
Personal Note:
Life is then most beautifully experienced in the renewal of itself.