“You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor.” – Aristotle
There is more than one type of courage. Physical courage is always on display by our military personnel, our police, firefighters and all of those who run toward danger when our survival instincts tell us to go in the opposite direction. Moral courage, on the other hand, is not nearly as obvious. While physical courage may place the individual’s life, limbs and health in peril, moral courage often puts a person’s career, status and reputation in jeopardy.
Moral courage takes many forms. In the professional realm, it may mean taking a “politically incorrect” stance on some issue or policy. In journalism, it may take the form of “speaking truth to power”, (although in today’s corporate media, just speaking the truth would be considered morally courageous).
Those who demonstrate moral courage, almost always do so out of a sense of honor and honesty. They are willing to take the risk to their status, reputation and/or career because it is the right thing to do. Honesty and honor are more important to them than their positions in their business or community. A good example of moral courage is Sam Houston. He had been a hero in Texas for decades when the Civil War broke out. The people, the politicians and the press were all for Texas seceding from the Union. Although he owned slaves, Houston was against leaving the Union and as governor, he refused to swear allegiance to the Confederacy. As a result he was removed as governor of Texas, but his honor forb ade him to swear to a cause he didn’t believe, regardless of the consequences.
While there seems to be no lack of physical courage by those first responders out on the streets, there seems to be a shortage of moral courage in some of those who are in administrative leadership positions. In law enforcement, in particular, it is apparent when a chief of police, sheriff, or other law enforcement leader, has moral courage. He or she backs officers who are doing their duty. Discipline will be dealt with fairly and quietly. This kind of leader will not be swayed by unfavorable public opinion or an antagonistic press. His decisions will only be determined by facts and truth. Such a leader has the respect of the troops and ultimately, the citizens. He will not have problems retaining good officers and employees. People in any organization recognize that it takes courage to do the right thing in the face of adverse public opinion and a hostile press.
The opposite of moral courage is, naturally, moral cowardice. This occurs when someone goes along with the conventional wisdom, public opinion or popular policy, even though he knows it is wrong. That individual doesn’t want to make waves that may upset his or her position, status or career. This type of cowardice is displayed by those who are weak, uncaring or lack integrity. Moral cowardice moves into the category of pure evil when those who knowingly promote or cover for a wrong, and that wrong injures another individual or group of individuals.
A good illustration of this moral cowardice evolving into evil is the George Floyd debacle that sent Officer Derek Chauvin and three other Minneapolis police officers to prison. In the November 30, 2025 edition of American Thinker, Dr. John Dale Dunn, wrote an article entitled, Finally, A Serious Challenge To Derek Chauvin’s Conviction. In this article Dr. Dunn presents evidence that Minneapolis police officers were trained to use the restraint (knee to the neck) that Chauvin used on Floyd and that it was considered safe by MPD.
The article also shows evidence that Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker’s early assessment was that “Floyd showed no evidence of homicide and no lethal injuries. Baker initially attributed Floyd’s death to cardiac arrest tied to underlying heart disease, physical struggle, agitation and methamphetamine intoxication.” Dr. Baker later changed his official position after he was threatened when he received two phone calls from Washington D.C. pathologist Dr. Roger Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell said he would publicly accuse Dr. Baker of misconduct if he didn’t include the phrase “neck compression” in the autopsy report. A few days later the final autopsy report included that phrase.
Dr. Dunn’s article includes documentation of probable perjury by police officials and trial Judge Cahill’s many incorrect rulings and lack of impartiality. It also includes implications that Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison rounded up a team of “zealous prosecutors” to convict Chauvin and the other officers. One would wonder if this was a conspiracy that included withholding exculpatory evidence for the defense.
The actions of those involved in the convictions of Officers Chauvin for murder and of Officers Thao, Kueng and Lane for violating George Floyd’s civil rights, moves them beyond the category of moral cowardice and into pure evil. Their actions not only ruined the lives and careers of these officers, they ruined the effectiveness of law enforcement officers all over the United States. If those who enforce the law can’t go into the streets expecting that they won’t be prosecuted for doing their jobs the way they were trained, how effective will they be? The participants who were involved in this Soviet-style prosecution should be held responsible criminally and shunned by society.
In this new year, Officers Chauvin, Thao, Kueng and Lane should be pardoned. Moral courage demands it.
