Rushworth Kidder's Book *Moral Courage*

Rushworth Kidder's 2005 book <i>Moral Courage</i> is something all municipal officials should read. It's not only a good introduction to ethics, but it focuses on the quality that is most important to create and maintain an ethical environment in any organization, and especially in governments. But since you probably won't read the book, here are a few of Kidder's points that will most profit municipal officials.

Moral courage's principal purpose is to take values from the theoretical to the practical, from thought to action. Without moral courage, an official will not act on his or her values.

<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/259">Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.</a>

Kidder defines moral courage as 'a commitment to moral principles, an awareness of the danger involved in supporting those principles, and a willing endurance of that danger.' Danger? Yes, if it's not dangerous, if there can be no harm to an official from doing the right thing, there is no reason why ethical thoughts are not turned into action. It is only when doing the right thing has possible negative consequences that moral courage is necessary. Possible dangers include everything from unpopularity to verbal and media attack, to firing, losing party support, or not being re-elected, to being sued, or even to the threat of physical harm.

The most common danger in organizations, however, is being seen as disloyal, being excluded from the power circle or alienating one's superiors. Going against the norm can be horrible for one's emotional well-being, one's self-esteem, and one's reputation. But as many good people who toe the line have learned, going along can be just as hard, and there is not the offsetting feeling that you've done the right thing, that you had the courage to do what you felt was right.

When Kidder refers to values, he is not including personal or organizational loyalty (what he refers to as 'fidelity') as a principal or 'core' value. His five core values are: honesty, respect, responsibility, fairness, and compassion. These apply very well to government. Loyalty often gets in the way of honesty. By excluding outsiders, it shows disrespect for citizens. It involves a great deal of responsibility, but not to the right people. It shows favoritism, which is unfair, and even gets in the way of compassion.

And there's another sort of loyalty that often gets in the way of moral courage. 'Of all the agonizing dilemmas facing humanity, few are more wrenching than the choice between what's right for the world and what's right for your family,' Rushworth wrote. This is one of the essential dilemmas behind conflict of interest laws, which require government officials to put the public interest ahead of their personal, family interest. Getting or keeping that job, that promotion, that pension, that contract, that party support, that post-government job -- all the things that put food on your table -- can undermine moral courage and prevent officials from doing what they know is right.

Besides loyalty, Kidder discusses some other things that inhibit moral courage. They include a refusal to take blame or responsibility, indecisiveness, secretiveness, sensitivity to criticism, the desire to be accepted, indifference, and shamelessness, all of which are familiar to anyone involved in municipal government. Moral courage is also inhibited by what Kidder calls 'counterfeits' for moral courage: willfulness, conceitedness or self-aggrandizement, and moralization.

Here's another useful definition of moral courage, from William Ian Miller's book <i>The Mystery of Courage</i>: 'the capacity to overcome the fear of shame and humiliation in order to admit one's mistakes, to confess a wrong, to reject evil conformity, to denounce injustice, and also to defy immoral or imprudent orders.' It's a bit dramatic ('evil,' 'denounce,' 'defy'), but its application to government is clear.

Opposing orders or taking unpopular stands is not enough to qualify as moral courage. Doing nothing can be cowardous, but more important, taking an immoral but unpopular stand (say, opposing minorities in one's town today) takes courage, but isn't moral.

Another important concept discussed in this book is the 'values perimeter.' Nearly all of us have good values, but we exercise them in different places. We might exercise them among family and friends, but not outside that circle (he mentions the Mafia as an extreme example). Or we might exercise them in our work, but not at home. It is important for government officials to expand the perimeter in which they exercise their values from their friends, colleagues, supporters, and party members, to include the entire citizenry over which they exercise power and responsibility. This is an aspect of moral courage that is usually overlooked.

Another common mistake involving moral courage is to refer to it as a virtue. Courage is not virtuous, but instrumental. That is, moral courage is necessary to turn virtues into action. It allows one to be honest when a lie will help or protect you, to be fair and respectful to people you disagree with, to be responsible rather than try to get away with things.

The book goes on to discuss ethical reasoning in great detail. But this will be the subject of another blog entry.