Virtues and vices, often neglected in analytic philosophy, are discussed here, drawing on the works of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant. Virtues are first described as beneficial characteristics that consist in goodness of the will, but a discussion of the virtue of wisdom shows a virtue may also require knowledge. Virtues are seen as correctives of harmful human passions and other general temptations, but this does not mean that a particular act of virtue must always be difficult to (...) perform. Lastly, it is argued that a virtue does not operate as a virtue when turned to a bad end, as for instance when someone needs daring to commit a murder. (shrink)

Courage is dangerous. If it is defined in traditional ways, as a set of dispositions to overcome fear, to oppose obstacles, to perform difficult or dangerous actions, its claim to be a virtue is questionable. Unlike the virtue of justice, or a sense of proportion, traditional courage does not itself determine what is to be done, let alone assure that it is worth doing. If we retain the traditional conception of courage and its military connotations–overcoming and combat–we should be suspicious (...) of it. Instead of automatically classifying it as a virtue, attempting to develop and exercise it, we should become alert to its dangers. And yet and yet. There is an aspect of traditional courage that serves us: we require the capacities and traits that enable us to persist in acting well under stress, to endure hardships when following our judgments about what is best is difficult or dangerous. If courage is checked, redefined as the virtue that enables virtue–the various sets of dispositions, whatever they may be, that make us resolute in worthy, difficult action–then we need not fear the dangers of courage. We need rather to reform it by diversifying it, as a heterogeneous variety of traits that enable us to act well under stress, against the natural movements of self-protection. (shrink)