Aristotle The Virtue Of Courage example essay topic

Introduction From Desert Storm to Tail hook, prevailing attitudes about military women are being reformulated and tested in myriad ways. How smoothly or quickly a shift in attitudes occurs is chiefly a matter of leadership. Commanders must give women equal access to a level playing field on which each competitor either succeeds or fails based on individual merit. If you put points on the scoreboard, you play. Tough standards outlawing fraternization, shunning paternalism, and minimizing segregation must be accompanied by changes, the hard fact is that women will fight as well as die in our next war. While a gender-neutral meritocracy may be difficult to achieve, an initial step is to promote a shared common identity and purpose: man or woman, a soldier is a soldier first.

(Mariner 54) Rosemary Mariner writes on a very important topic that circulates through the ranks of the military as well as through the public eye. We ponder whether or not women should be allowed to serve among the ranks of those serving in the combat arms and fighting at the front lines; and if they are not allowed to do so, why The reason most likely stems from the early writings of the great philosophers, which give credence to the belief that women are incapable of possessing virtues, and in this case the virtue of courage. "Aristotle maintains that woman is a mutilated or incomplete man... [and] since he associates heat with life or soul, he therefore supposes women to have less soul than men" (Agonito 41). For Aristotle the virtue of courage is associated with the actions of soldiers in battle and soldiers in the armies of his times were all men.

If such is the case, according to Aristotle, then women are incapable of fighting in wartime situations, because they are not courageous enough. Plato on the other hand argues that. ".. we " re dealing with a physically weaker sex: the males are stronger" (Plato 1 162). Other Platonic writings coincide with this belief. Plato wrote in Laches "If someone is willing to remain in the ranks and ward off the enemies and not run, you know he is courageous" (Plato 2 100), this being the definition of courage according to General Laches.

Laches further explains that "manliness, though fully expressed only in the actions of war, naturally includes a whole set of other physical and mental habits without which the citizen-soldier would be incapable of fighting bravely and would lack the willingness to do his duty, if only because of physical and emotional exhaustion" (Plato 2 109). In either case it would seem that the consensus is that women should not be allowed to participate in war either because they are incapable of possessing virtue, or because they are too weak. Nevertheless, it will be the primary focus of this paper to argue that courage is not a gender specific virtue. There will be no discussion as to whether or not females are the weaker of the two sexes as this is a moot topic today, primarily because of the use of steroids and other strength enhancement drugs as well as the acceptance of women into the realm of professional strength training.

Virtue Virtue ethics as a theory of morality has existed, most notably, since Aristotle, who maintains that women are "incomplete men". Courage is one of the virtues discussed by Aristotle. To display courage a person must experience fear and perceive danger, although the circumstances surrounding an act of courage need to be proportionate to perceived risk to avoid the activity becoming an enterprise of foolishness. Furthermore, the potential consequences associated with the risk must be proportionate to the ends concerning the bravery. These elements associated with courage are undoubtedly equally available to both sexes, and in the sense of equality woman can and have been courageous. A virtue is an ideal of the way someone should be, a component of character.

Aristotle described virtue as being a mean, or average of attitude, which could be uncovered via reasoning and displayed through personality and behavior styles (Hinman 334-335). For example, the average between an excess, like contrariness, and a deficiency, like sycophancy, might be honest opinion. Hinman mentions further the difference between substantive virtues; those that are closer to the ethical good, like philanthropy, and executive virtues; those less associated with being morally good and more directly linked with qualities of desirable persona. Courage is said to be an executive virtue, one that contains at least two components.

Courage First, there must be an internal factor of fear or even phobia. Psychology informs us that fear is an awareness of physiological changes in response to some stimulus or other. These changes include increased respiration, heartbeat, blood pressure, and higher production of epinephrine (adrenaline). Other changes such as pupil dilation, increased sweating and decreased production of saliva are often present too. This process occurs in a part of the autonomic, non-voluntary, nervous system called the sympathetic division (Aitkenson 331). All healthy humans have sympathetic divisions of the autonomic nervous system and are thus prone to the physiological, and psychological effects of fear.

Second, there must be an external factor of perceived danger in a circumstance for a courageous deed to be possible. The degree of such will depend on how the individual relates the present circumstance with experiences of past events and situations. For example, if I see a torrential ly flooded river an attempt to cross it would be perceived as dangerous because I have seen many such situations on television where lives have been put at risk. This cognitive component is important in danger because I may enter a dangerous situation without realizing it and thus act without courage. It could be imagined that an individual has no idea that in order to cull an animal so that they can feed their family, they have to walk across a minefield.

If the minefield is unknown to the individual then no fear will be experienced because no danger is attached to collecting the prey on the other side of the field. In this case no act of bravery has been committed. Alternatively, it appears courage can be displayed without any real danger existing. Socrates responds to Laches' definition of courage with one of his own, stating: .".. courage-like quality is to be found in the movements of the soul that involve the firm control of passions, the enduring restraint of appetites and their corresponding pains of frustration of fears of loss, no less than the endurance of ordinary pain and restraint of ordinary fear.

But courage as a virtue of choice is expressed only in rational actions having to do with danger and suffering, not temptation and pleasure" (Plato 2 109). Courage & Phobias Phobias have the component of fear without physical danger. A phobia may be defined as an irrational fear, associated with a stimulus containing no objective hazard. To confront a phobia takes similar courage needed in non-phobic situations because the associated behaviors necessary to conquer the phobia are manifested despite fear or anxiety. This is contrary to Hinman's concept of rightly ordered fears.

He maintains that once phobias have been overcome courage is no longer part of the relationship between actor and situation. He also maintains that if courage is responding to objectively identifiable danger then responses to psychological dangers will not count and if individuals do not perceive objective dangers as such they will not be counted as courageous. This all appears to be acceptable. However, Hinman then seems to discount facing phobias as a valid form of courage (Hinman 338). Phobias may be placed in the objective realm of rightly ordered fears because for the phobic actor, because no matter how illogical the response is to the stimulus all elements of fear and danger still exist. The proportion of fear to actual risk to an un-empathetic observer may be unbalanced.

But because fear is a subjective emotion, it seems illogical to try and objectively quantify, or comparatively ordinate it with dangers that are also subjectively assessed by the phobic. All of this infers that courage is more attached to overcoming fear rather than danger. Indeed, the dangerousness of a situation is often out of the actor's control. However, fear is not always a controllable phenomenon either, and this is perhaps why when people act against perceived danger, in spite of fear, they are considered courageous (Hinman 338). Again it appears that most healthy, rational humans, woman and men alike, are capable of recognizing dangerous situations with the relevant knowledge in tow. Both men and woman also confront phobias, and so in these respects courage does not appear to be a gender specific virtue.

There must also be appropriate self-confidence and a relatively accurate assessment of the risk involved in any action for it to be courageous, rather than foolish. To skydive without training would be risky. A person, who has partaken in such an activity without worrying about the likely consequences, would be quite foolish. However, the same act carried out by someone who is properly trained can be seen as moderately courageous, at least for the first few times. Once more, as skill and experience is gained fear is less likely to be experienced.

Indeed, the physiological components once associated with fear may be associated with an experience of exhilaration. Sensibility is also a factor in courage. It would also be foolish to do something like risk one's life for the sake of something like a Twinkie, because the risk involved, when compared with the outcome, is far too great. But, to risk life or injury for the sake of another human being would not be so foolish because the intended ends justify the possible cost (Hinman 339). As all of the above appears to be equally applicable to both men and women it seems almost inane to ask whether or not courage is a gender specific virtue, but the context of the question needs to be illustrated. For Aristotle the virtue of courage is associated with actions of soldiers in battle and soldiers in the armies of his times were all men.

Historically, acts of courage exhibited by woman have tended to be under-valued, or even unrecognized (Hinman 341). The above modern framing of the concept of courage is far wider than Aristotle's and women are generally more accepted as being equal to men now, and it is therefore safe to say courage is not gender-specific. Courage is not limited to the confines of the battlefield; it can be displayed in any risky situation. However, to keep with the argument that Aristotle asserts we will first use an example of a wartime situation that had occurred prior to the life of Aristotle and proves that women can possess courage during battle. We will then access an example of a non-wartime situation from the present that shows an example of courage in women. The first example comes from the Old Testament and was readily available for Aristotle and his students.

The courage of Jael The book of Judges is dated between 1200-1020 B.C.E. (New Revised Standard Version 367). In the book of Judges there is a reoccurring theme of Israel being delivered into the hands of another nation because they are not right with God. However, the Lord, as intolerable as he may be, eventually hears the cries of Israel and raises up Judges to deliver Israel from their oppressors. One such Judge was Deborah.

Deborah, along with an Israelite General named Barak, was to deliver the Israelites from the Canaanites by defeating the army of Jabin. As Barak and his army defeated Jabin's army, Jabin's top General, Sisera, fled for his life. "He came to the place where Heber and his family dwelt, and assumed that he could accept Jael's hospitality since they had an alliance with Jabin King of Haz or. Sisera, exhausted form the battle and chase, fell asleep while hiding under a covering in Jael's tent. While he slept, Jael took a tent peg and ran it through his temple-a very brave deed, considering that the Israelites had not totally subdued the area and Jabin could be expected to retaliate" (Gardner 287). Gardner has given a good summary; however, it does not heed the justice that is deserved either to the story or to the character of Jael.

Jael & Sisera In the Biblical account we are given first the information that, "All the army of Sisera fell by the sword; no one was left" (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4: 16). So even from a fairly distant location, onlookers would know that Sisera was defeated in battle. We also know that Sisera was afoot (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4: 17) and the place where he would hide would have to be close. It further follows that King Jabin and the clan of Heber had a peace treaty of some sorts (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4: 17), and that Jael was from the clan of Heber.

Jael at this point becomes the primary focus of Judges chapter 4 (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4: 18-24). It can be construed that she is fully aware of her political situation not only that she, and her clan, are allies to King Jabin but also that there is some political tension between the Israelites and the clan of Heber; this stemming from the hatred between the Israelites and King Jabin. In fear of being succumbed and enslaved by the Israelites Jael devises a plan and sets it into motion. It can be assumed that this is done to ensure the safety of her, her family and her fellow clansmen. This is done first by offering safety to General Sisera; "Jael came out to meet Sisera, and said to him, "Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me; have no fear" (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4: 18). She guarantees his safety by insisting that he have no fear.

She covers him with a rug and he asks for water, "So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him" (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4: 18). Her choice of giving him warm milk as opposed to water is important to note here. She chooses milk primarily because it is a time-tested sedative. "Experts believe the amino acid l-Tryptophan (found in milk and other foods such as turkey and eggs) makes eyelids heavy by raising the level of a chemical in the brain called serotonin" (Ahealthyme. com). Jael knew the affect that the warm milk would have on Sisera, which was part of her plan.

Once Sisera was asleep "Jael... took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, until it went down into the ground... and he died" (New Revised Standard Version, Judges 4: 21). It is only logical to conclude that Jael, knowing of her political situation and knowing how to ensure her and her clansmen's safety, acted in a courageous manner during a time of war. She did this by killing and delivering Sisera into the hands of Barak and the Israelites. Knowing that the Israelites were pursuing Sisera she took him into her tent, her violation was two-fold. First, had her husband come into the tent at any time prior to the death of Sisera it may have been perceived as an act of adultery, and second, had the pursuing army caught her hiding him they would have killed her. Despite the fact that neither happened there still was the element of fear.

As a matter of fact, all of the aforementioned signs of courage are mentioned: an internal factor of fear or phobia, an awareness of physiological changes in response to some and it is almost assured that there was increased respiration, heartbeat, blood pressure, higher production of epinephrine, pupil dilation, increased sweating and decreased production of saliva all of which are autonomic, non-voluntary. There was assuredly an external factor of perceived danger as mentioned before. The pursuing army, the chance that she could get caught by her husband or Barak with Sisera and even the possibility that she could be raped or killed by Sisera in the chance that he was not sleeping. Despite the fact that Jael was not fighting on the front lines, she was capable of assessing the situation and making a sensible decision, the consequences of which could have been death. She did not choose the path of the coward or as General Laches would have put it she was. ".. willing to remain in the ranks and ward off the enemies and not run...

". (Plato 2 100), per se. Non-Combat Examples of Courage There are many situations that could be spoken about to display non-combative examples of courage. For example, many women become pregnant without the resources material and or psychological means to cope with such an event and yet courageously trod through the experience. Women who abort as a result of their immediate circumstances experience much pressure yet do so with an overabundance of courage. Both experience fear that is not attributable to phobias.

The single mother faces the persecution of church groups, peers, and the disappointment of the parents. She can be perceived as not living up to the expectations that have been set upon her by society. A young woman that chooses to abort the fetus does so knowing that there will be protesters, religious zealots, and possibly a health risk, keeping in mind that any procedure is capable of going wrong. Fear is further coddled because of the huge moral debate, which must increase trauma, as well as the taxation that the procedure has on the body. It is hugely stressful physically and psychologically. Surely, courage is needed to make decisions in circumstances such as these.

The act of giving birth is also one that requires great courage. Historically, this ordeal was extremely risky because of crude medical technology as Hinman recognizes (341-342). Women also partake in military roles traditionally exclusive to men. The Red Army contained female regiments, as did the Vietnamese army. Female fighter pilots are a valuable part of some modern Air and Naval Forces, amongst others, all of which employ woman with in their ranks. Our Air Force now allows female combat bomber pilots to fly in wartime situations.

Most police forces and fire departments have women assigned to front-line duty. Courage is now equally available to women, in consideration of this, even if the Aristotelian definition of such is adhered to. Perhaps women, because of the sex roles they historically held, require another facet to be added to the definition of courage. This addition may make the acts of courage exhibited by woman more obvious. Courage and Sex-role Stereotypes The implications of how to act in order to display the virtue of courage appear to lean toward male sex role stereotypes. Men who have been socialized accordingly have displayed the stereotypes over centuries.

In the early 21st century, in order to attain gender equality, it seems as if females have to display courageous behaviors according to how men have defined them, rather than modifying how one should act in order to manifest such. Historically, it appears that Hinman's definition of courage is applicable to how men have been defining and displaying courage. It may be argued that the traditional role of woman in the family and society is one that has been directed by men resulting in the suppression of real female freedom and ability, and thus female oppression. MacIntyre proposes that virtues are based on sources, gathered through historical perspectives, allowing society to retrospect and then endeavor to find standards of excellence based on such. These standards encourage individuals to behave according to moral perspectives found in areas such as in popular culture. Thus, different genders could have very different thoughts about what is an issue of courage and, also have different perspectives on how to deal with such issues (Csongradi).

Plurality Ethics The discussion above highlights the relevance of Hinman's plurality ethics. He bases his pluralism on four principles. First is a principal of understanding through a sincere desire to comprehend variance; we must embrace different expressions of virtues regarding how such are defined by cultures and sub-cultures. Second, by acceptance of the validity of different manifestations of courage as a virtue in different sexes, diversity in such can be recognized and Hinman's principal of tolerance will be accommodated. Although, tolerance appears to have a slightly negative connotation in that it implies an attitude of putting up with something.

Here, a principle of acknowledgement is possibly more appropriate. Third, acceptance of multiplicity in the expression of courage endorses its non-gender specific nature. Because courage is a virtue, validating diversity in the expression of such will likely reinforce its proliferation and, will apply to the principal of standing up against evil, and perhaps help extinguish the vice of cowardice. Fourth, Hinman's principle of fallibility is relevant because, it has been the implication that a traditional male conception of the dangerousness aspect in courage may be subtly lacking in points of emotion and responsibility. Importantly, the realization of this emotional facet in perception of danger will validate not only difference feminism, but also related experiences faced by men.

Today, although perhaps to a decreasing extent, we live in a society wherein emotionality as a part of how men experience fear and danger, and thus display courage, is inclined to be discounted. Conclusion It is apparent that courage is not a gender-specific virtue. In all aspects, for courage to be expressed, males and females appear to be equally equipped. Both sexes experience fear and are capable of assessing dangerous situations, accurately or erroneously. Both sexes are involved in roles, which regularly necessitate courage. When Plato wrote Republic he was not far off base as to how the future would turn out.

His ideas of a society that would share the duties of the society with all of the members, not differentiating between men and women, have been realized, for the most part, here in the United States. As he suggested "Both men and women have the same natural ability for guarding a community, and it's just that women are innately weaker than men" (Plato 1 168). Nevertheless, Mariner maintains that there is a problem in not letting women serve in combat situations based on loose notions of virtue and myths. She sustains the belief that the only reason women are still segregated from the military is because. ".. war is that of the warrior-protector: men protect women, women don't protect men" (Mariner 56).

She concludes by saying, "A person's sex is irrelevant" (Mariner 61); and it certainly is in the matter of courage and virtue.

Bibliography

Agonito, Rosemary. History of Ideas on Woman. New York; Capricorn Books. 1977.
Ahealthyme. com. Sleep Aids During Pregnancy. 18 Nov. 2001.
Aitkenson, R.L. et al. Introduction to Psychology (8th Ed. ). San Diego; Harcourt, 1983.
Csongradi, Carolyn. Factors Influencing The Way In Which Decisions Are Made: Why Teach Bioethics in the Classroom... 15 Nov. 2001.
18 Nov. 2001.
Gardner, Paul. ed. New International Encyclopedia of Bible Characters: The complete Who's Who in the Bible. Grand Rapids; Zondervan. 1995.
Hinman, Lawrence. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory (2nd Ed. ). San Diego; Harcourt Brace College Publishers. 1998.
New Revised Standard Version: Study Bible. San Francisco; Harper Collins. 1989.
Mariner, Rosemary. A soldier is a soldier. JF. Winter 1993-1994.
20 Nov. 2001.
Plato 1. Republic. Trans. Robin Water field. New York; Barnes and Nobles Books. 1993.
Plato 2. Laches: On Manly Courage; A Study of Plato's Laches. Trans. Walter T. Schmid. Carbondale; Southern Illinois University Press. 1992.