Audio By Vocalize
“Before I begin, just a quick announcement. If any other moral cowards haven’t left this hall, please do so now.” That is what Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, paused to say as delegates walked out ahead of his address at the just-concluded UNGA.
Moral cowards. That is what he called those who walked out. Not just cowards but moral cowards. He wasn’t just questioning their decision not to listen to his address; he was also questioning their morality. But then, who gets to decide what constitutes moral cowardice or moral courage?
I imagine those who walked out believed they were making a morally bold statement. To them, remaining in the hall may have felt like lending legitimacy to a leader whose government’s conduct they strongly disagreed with.
Mr Netanyahu, on the other hand, saw it differently. He called them hypocrites for walking out and insisted Israel was right to defend itself and, by extension, other countries from aggression.
Same action, different interpretation. The question is not simply who was right but who determines what is morally right when our convictions, loyalties and interests collide. It gets even more complicated when politics enters the room.
I have often wondered how remarkably creative we can become when the person doing wrong is ‘our person.’
When the politician we dislike is accused of corruption, we demand accountability. We laud the government when they are arrested and charged. When the same happens to the politician we support, we want context; we demand evidence and explanations. We even find ‘enemies’ to blame.
When a leader we like says something offensive, we invoke freedom of expression or claim meanings were lost in translation. When the same words come from someone we dislike, we demand that every institution in the land takes action.
Writing under Nazi rule, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s concern was not simply individual cowardice but what happens when people surrender personal responsibility to obedience, convention or the demands of the moment. His circumstances were completely different from ours but the question he raised still resonates.
Moral courage has everything to do with principle. What is wrong cannot become right just because of the actors.
One can support a politician but still disagree with some of the things they say or do. We can vote for someone and still criticise some of the policies they push. One can believe in a political cause and still acknowledge when lines have been crossed. This is where political maturity resides. Where people can be deemed morally bold.
There is little courage required to condemn someone we dislike. The ultimate test is to look at our own side and say, no, this is wrong. Maybe moral courage isn’t so much about justifying our choices every other time but applying the same standard even when sometimes, it means standing alone.
If violence is wrong, it should be wrong regardless of who commits it. If abuse of human rights must be condemned, it should be condemned whatever the circumstances. If corruption is a crime, it must be prosecuted without putting into consideration which side the accused belongs to. If GBV is wrong, it remains wrong regardless of gender. And if a friend is wrong, they are simply wrong. Calling them out does not make one a lesser friend.
Ultimately, the real test comes when we can look on our side and say, no, this is wrong.
The moral coward may not always be the person who is afraid to speak. Sometimes, it is the person who knows what they believe is wrong but is afraid of what they may lose by saying so. It may be access, friendship, popularity, power, influence or even material benefit.
Moral courage may not be about the one who loudly justifies their choices every time but about applying the same standards, holding the same conviction even when doing so may inconvenience them.
They were called moral cowards for walking out of an address they didn’t want to validate, but maybe that was their very act of courage. Determining who is a moral coward may require us first to acknowledge that right and wrong can never work interchangeably.
Support Independent Journalism
Stand With Bold Journalism.
Stand With The Standard.
Continue
→
Pay via
Secure Payment
Kenya’s most trusted newsroom since 1902
“Before I begin, just a quick announcement. If any other moral cowards haven’t left this hall, please do so now.” That is what Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, paused to say as delegates walked out ahead of his address at the just-concluded UNGA.
Moral cowards. That is what he called those who walked out. Not just cowards but moral cowards. He wasn’t just questioning their decision not to listen to his address; he was also questioning their morality. But then, who gets to decide what constitutes moral cowardice or moral courage?
I imagine those who walked out believed they were making a morally bold statement. To them, remaining in the hall may have felt like lending legitimacy to a leader whose government’s conduct they strongly disagreed with.
Mr Netanyahu, on the other hand, saw it differently. He called them hypocrites for walking out and insisted Israel was right to defend itself and, by extension, other countries from aggression.
Same action, different interpretation. The question is not simply who was right but who determines what is morally right when our convictions, loyalties and interests collide. It gets even more complicated when politics enters the room.
I have often wondered how remarkably creative we can become when the person doing wrong is ‘our person.’
When the politician we dislike is accused of corruption, we demand accountability. We laud the government when they are arrested and charged. When the same happens to the politician we support, we want context; we demand evidence and explanations. We even find ‘enemies’ to blame.
When a leader we like says something offensive, we invoke freedom of expression or claim meanings were lost in translation. When the same words come from someone we dislike, we demand that every institution in the land takes action.
Writing under Nazi rule, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s concern was not simply individual cowardice but what happens when people surrender personal responsibility to obedience, convention or the demands of the moment. His circumstances were completely different from ours but the question he raised still resonates.
Moral courage has everything to do with principle. What is wrong cannot become right just because of the actors.
One can support a politician but still disagree with some of the things they say or do. We can vote for someone and still criticise some of the policies they push. One can believe in a political cause and still acknowledge when lines have been crossed. This is where political maturity resides. Where people can be deemed morally bold.
There is little courage required to condemn someone we dislike. The ultimate test is to look at our own side and say, no, this is wrong. Maybe moral courage isn’t so much about justifying our choices every other time but applying the same standard even when sometimes, it means standing alone.
If violence is wrong, it should be wrong regardless of who commits it. If abuse of human rights must be condemned, it should be condemned whatever the circumstances. If corruption is a crime, it must be prosecuted without putting into consideration which side the accused belongs to. If GBV is wrong, it remains wrong regardless of gender. And if a friend is wrong, they are simply wrong. Calling them out does not make one a lesser friend.
Ultimately, the real test comes when we can look on our side and say, no, this is wrong.
The moral coward may not always be the person who is afraid to speak. Sometimes, it is the person who knows what they believe is wrong but is afraid of what they may lose by saying so. It may be access, friendship, popularity, power, influence or even material benefit.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
Moral courage may not be about the one who loudly justifies their choices every time but about applying the same standards, holding the same conviction even when doing so may inconvenience them.
They were called moral cowards for walking out of an address they didn’t want to validate, but maybe that was their very act of courage. Determining who is a moral coward may require us first to acknowledge that right and wrong can never work interchangeably.
By Faith Wekesa