Alex asked:

Not really a question, just something I found that I thought was amusing but I don't necessarily agree
with... still, it at least sounds philosophical and is good food for thought:

"No man deserves to be praised for his goodness unless he has the strength of character to be
wicked. All other goodness is generally nothing but indolence or impotence of will" — Anonymous.

The statement that you quote is false, the claim it makes is absurd, but it contains an uncomfortable
nugget of truth. For many of us, most of the time, what passes for moral 'goodness' — kindness and
consideration for others, honesty, respect for the law — is the easiest option. For many of us most of
the time, it costs nothingto be moral. Yet amongst those whose normal behaviour passes all the tests
for moral goodness are persons who would be quite capable of unspeakable acts of evil and
wickedness, if the occasion arose. Model citizens, good husbands and fathers joined the Waffen SS.

In other words, one cannot judge moral goodness on a superficial inspection. This is clear enough in
the case of others. But the tragic fact is that we cannot even be sure of our own selves. We cannot be
totally certain that we would acquit ourselves honourably were the test ever to come. If the man in the
suit made me an offer that I could not refuse, would I refuse?

As Socrates saw, courageis inseparable from moral virtue.

That is the nugget of truth. What is false and absurd is the idea that the capacity for wickedness is a
part of courage, or necessary condition for strength of moral character. A 'capacity for wickedness'
means preparedness to carry out a wicked act given the appropriate inducements or it means
nothing. It is a contradiction in terms to say that an individual was prepared to carry out a wicked act,
yet would never carry out a wicked act under any circumstances. Yet surely the incapacity to carry
out a wicked act under any circumstances is just what we admire in the person of strong moral
character.

Geoffrey Klempner