There are some people in life who have distinguished themselves by the way they speak. They are (or at least claim to be) the visionaries, the big thinkers, the idealists, the utopians to whom we give the power to provide the ideological frameworks upon which we build our lives and societies. Examples of such people include politicians, religious officials, activists and even some writers. They talk about the way things are supposed to be; they are able to see beyond what is, and are able to paint a picture of what could be… they make us aspire to become better versions of ourselves.

No matter how cynical we think we are, we are all attracted to these “talkers of virtue” [1] to some degree. There is a reason why ideologies are so powerful: On a deep and primal level, we are attracted to certain ideals [2]. At least for most of us, there are images of the kinds of people we want to be, and what we envision to be the better philosophies and systems upon which the world should function. Hearing people talk about those ideals gives us hope, it gives strength for us to continue to strive for them even when it is difficult.

What we normally do (as individuals and societies) is to reward such people with status. We give them honor for their positions, and elevate them to the highest rungs of society. Most of the time, they are our leaders, the ones for whom the choicest seats are reserved in any gathering. Consciously or not, we invest time, energy, sometimes even money and emotion, into them, and give them enormous power: the ability to speak into our lives, and change the way we think and feel about situations.

But then these investments we make are not for nothing. In return, we expect certain things, the most important of which is that at the very least, these people would live their lives in accordance with the ideals which they espouse.

If only that were the case.

The world is rife with many contradictions. People who advocate for chastity yet cannot resist some sugar on the side. Unmarried family counsellors. Advocates of socialism who refuse to share their own wealth. Leaders preaching and demanding loyalty, yet who do not offer any modicum of the same to their followers. Africans complaining about how terrible things are in their countries, or how much potential these countries have, yet doing nothing to make things better. Or living in lush comfort in the diaspora, with no intentions to return home [3], yet telling people that they can make it in their home countries.

In an ideal world, we would all do what we say. However, anybody who has been alive long enough knows that this is not the case.

The responses to this situation are varied. Some people have discarded the ideals altogether, along with the people who advocate for them. They have become cynics, some of whom spend most of their lives looking for inconsistencies in the lives of others. While I think some degree of skepticism is necessary for good living, I think this approach is a little extreme: It is throwing away the baby with the bathwater. The question then is whether we should listen to these talkers of virtue, and under what circumstances.

The answer is short and simple: Only listen to those whose lives show some evidence that they have walked the path upon which their ideas will take you. I have met many people who say some principles are universal, and that whether or not a person has done something meaningful, they can know what to do in a given situation. While I agree with the first part of that statement, I find the second half quite problematic.

It is one thing to understand the scientific principle of gravity, and to know that jumping from a tall building will kill you. It is an entirely different thing however, to think that an intellectual understanding of love and commitment qualifies a person to tell other people how to run their marriages.

Just as we should not judge people based on their said intentions, we should refrain from evaluating people based on what they profess to believe. Anybody can profess to believe in anything, given the right circumstances. What they actually do, how they actually act out those beliefs should be more salient. People should at least be held accountable for the ideals they espouse; they should have something to lose for the stands they take on issues. That should be the price to pay for the privilege that others give them to speak into their lives.

Whether we would like to admit it or not, trusting anybody with our attention is somewhat an act of faith: By accepting another person’s ideas as true, we are trusting them with our lives, with the hope that those ideas will make our lives better. Why then would you make such a commitment to ideas when the proponent himself (herself) does not?

Some may misconstrue the preceding paragraphs as a demand for perfection in leadership, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

It is an entirely different scenario if a person tries, but fails. Failure is human. And they at least tried. But even if this is the case, do they accept responsibility for their actions? Many times, if they are really sincere and committed to the things they profess, you may even benefit more from listening to a person who failed at something than the one who succeeded. In reality, there is plenty of wisdom in looking for a trail of both success and failure in a person whose ideas we want to give more attention.

Listening to anybody is an enormous commitment, especially of time and emotion. Very few of us are smart enough to figure out life on our own; as such we need to look to others to provide at least the framework upon which we can decide for ourselves how to live. But we need to be more discretionary about who we give such power to. Especially those who give us advice on a personal level should have some stake in our lives; they should have something to lose if something goes wrong.

And by the way, we should apply the same standards to ourselves: Don’t send people down a path you are not willing to go yourself.

Notes

[1] I realize that the word “virtue” sounds conspicuously moralistic. This is inadvertent. While this essay does apply to issues of morality, its logic is not limited to such contexts. Virtue here simply refers to the values a person holds dear, and aspires to. Boldness, entrepreneurial spirit, altruism… these could be the “virtues”, depending on the person, and their context. A more appropriate title would probably have been “talkers of ideals”. Why didn’t I give it that title then? Well, “talkers of virtue” sounded catchier to me.

[2] Again, for the sake of clarity, these ideals are not the same for everybody.

[3] Some of them do not even consider it home anymore.