Will the World Be Better If Everyone is More Courageous? Probably Not.
On Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism
If everyone were 10% more courageous would the world be better? It depends what we mean by better.
Going purely by a utilitarian calculus (more net happiness), I imagine the world would not change that much—and might stay the same—because if good guys and bad guys, correct and incorrect minds, pure and impure motivations, are all endowed with more courage, all that changes is that people are more effective in their execution. On consequentialist terms (judging X’s value solely by outcome), an increase in global courage only makes the world better if it is unevenly distributed—to the right people.
The same might be said for many of the virtues espoused by virtue ethicists (people who argue that morality is about character and habit, rather than social outcome): patience, prudence, tolerance, generosity, kindness, zest, compassion, justice, humility, mindfulness, integrity, etc. What matters is that these are applied by the right people in the right circumstance. And even then, what does that mean?
One reason the world isn’t better is that people who have proper understanding aren’t courageous enough. Another is that courageous people get it wrong.
If we define courage by outcome rather than character, we won’t call people who get it wrong courageous, but brash or foolish. But that’s a post-hoc rationalization. Part of being courageous is taking a risk—if there is no chance of failing, it’s not courage. So we want more risk-taking. Fine. But what we should really want, going by outcome alone, is less risk. A world of total certainty would abolish the chance to be courageous (and would be dystopian), but it might be better on utilitarian grounds. Consequentialists should want more certainty (and less risk), not more courage and risk-taking.
Leadership has been a buzz-word in corporate America, at least since the 1980s. Leadership training is a form of education that makes virtue the handmaiden of consequence. It takes the classical virtues of ancient philosophy and argues that these will lead to the best outcomes for a person or company (rather than arguing that they are ends in themselves). If leadership coaches didn’t make such an argument, they’d have no value proposition in our culture. Consequentialism (getting the desired outcome) is how you sell virtue (doing the right thing because it’s the right thing).
Has the world improved as a result of more leadership development courses? I’m skeptical. At the social outcome level, character, like nuclear warfare, or any form of weaponry, or power, needs to be deployed for the right cause by the right people. In itself it is socially and politically neutral. The reason why character matters is not because the world will be better, but because the soul will be. But better souls do not a better world make. They just make the world more deep, more profound, more meaningful.
I believe character matters for “spiritual” or “existential reasons, but not for the reasons espoused by consequentialists. I’m not holding my breath for the consequentialist’s materialist world to improve as a result of better leadership.
But since we never have consensus about what the right thing is, because reasonable and good people, smart and passionate people, disagree, leadership is all we have. It’s a hedge against uncertainty.
Why am I wrong?
Zohar
What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.
You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.