Courage - part 1

What is courage? The answer may seem obvious … until one actually attempts to put the definition into words. The Oxford English Dictionary defines courage as “the ability to do something that frightens one.” That definition has two key components:

1. Fear is integral to courage; doing something that does not cause one to fear does not entail courage.
2. Courage is evident in doing something, not in discussing a hypothetical.

That definition of courage coheres well with Aristotle’s definition of courage found in the Nichomachean Ethics. Aristotle defines courage as the mean between the extremes of rashness and cowardice appropriate to a particular situation. In other words, specific contexts determines whether the same action may constitute an example of rashness (foolish action without regard to the probable consequences), courageous, or cowardice. Thus, Aristotle helpfully extends the Oxford Dictionary’s definition by insightfully observing that courage and rashness denote different categories of action and that situation determines when an action belong to which category.

The Bible contains over one hundred exhortations to people to be courageous. The gospel of John records that Jesus told his disciples to be courageous, for he has conquered the world (John 16:33). However, the Bible unfortunately does not define “courage.”

Linking the definitions of courage found in Aristotle and Oxford English Dictionary clarifies that we rightly understand courage as a concept in moral psychology. The moral dimension of courage lies in deciding if and when and how to exercise courage; the psychological component of courage lies in mustering the wherewithal to act. If so, then punishing people for a lack of courage seems inappropriate. Some people may not know when they should exercise courage. Alternatively, the issue may become a psychological question: how, if possible, to help a person who lacks courage develop the ability to act in specific situations when frightened. Reserving that issue for the second part of this essay on courage, this essay will focus on the prior moral question of how to determine if and when to act in the face of fear.

Describing courage as a virtue, a character trait that describes how a person habitually acts, begs the moral questions implicit within the virtue, i.e., determining if and when a person should act in the face of fear. Is courage a deontological or utilitarian problem, i.e., should we determine if and when to exercise courage based on an absolute rule or a cost-benefit analysis?

The Christian tradition has helpfully recognized courage’s moral dimension by identifying courage as one of the four cardinal virtues. Discussions of courage in that context, however, rarely address the strictly moral questions of if and when a person should exercise courage because the cardinal virtue of prudence answers those questions. Unfortunately, those discussions necessarily remain at the level of vague generalities because of the wide diversity of situations that can call for a person to exercise some measure of courage in the face of fear. Linking prudence and courage complements Aristotle’s insight that courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice determined for each situation.