Draft:Courage
[gL.edu] This article gathers contributions being developed by Arlen Sharp, within the context of the Conceptual clarification about "Information, Knowledge and Philosophy", under the supervisión of J.M. Díaz Nafría.
Teacher's Comments: This article requires the corrections indicated below:
|
What is Courage?
‘Courage’ is a broad and translucent concept that may generally be positioned in contention with fear and uncertainty. Every individual has the ability to recognise and practice courage, however there is no one concise definition or obvious marker of courage. Most basically, it may be defined as a purposed considered disregard for danger and one’s own wellbeing in an attempt to attain a particular goal. As such, it is somewhat synonymous with ‘confidence,’ although confidence needn’t be practical nor honest, whereas courage is somewhat reliant upon both. It may be said that there are 2 main types of courage; that of physical courage, and that of moral courage – however, the two are not mutually exclusive, and one may supersede, precede, or trigger the other. Moral courage is a much-discussed topic in both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions, as well as within theological circles.
Throughout history, and within most literature, courage is considered a ‘virtue.’ A virtue is a trait of an individual that is seen as being morally good, generally due to its benefit to society. In opposition to virtues are ‘vices,’ which are generally unhelpful and even detrimental traits that may or may not be intentional. Other virtues that are usually placed alongside courage include those of the Christian tradition, within whose ‘Cardinal Virtues,’ ‘fortitude’ may be seen as an equivalent. The philosophical tradition of Stoicism also places much emphasis on the virtue of courage, alongside three other primary virtues. Every philosophy that deals in the concept of virtues (e.g. Virtue Ethics) largely agree that virtues may be practiced, trained in, and potentially perfected, and that it is the goal of each individual to do so, both for themselves and their community.
Famously, Winston Churchill, in a piece published in 1931, was quoted as saying –
‘Men and kings must be judged in the testing moments of their lives. Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities, because, as has been said, it is the quality which guarantees all others.’[1] [1]
Physical Courage
Physical courage is perhaps the simplest of the two to define – in situations in which one is pursuing a goal, and, in the process of attaining said goal, one’s physical wellbeing is in danger, one may display courage if they actively decide to accept and face this danger in pursuit of the goal. As with moral courage, physical acts may only be considered ‘courageous’ if they are done with forethought (that is, ‘intelligently,’) and are known to be within the ability of the acting individual.
Many examples of physical courage are recorded in human history, with most being linked to courage displayed in battle or warfare. Awards exist within the armed forces of many nations that are given to those who express exceptional courage or valour in times of great distress, one of the most recognised of these being the Victoria Cross (given in Commonwealth Countries to those who display ‘extreme bravery in the presence of the enemy.’)[2]
In his work, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl argues that one’s mental courage is inextricably linked to their physical well-being. Within the Search for Meaning, Frankl recounts his time spent in Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. His work focuses on the key observation he made; that a man with true meaning, purpose, and a future to look forward to, and therefore the courage to survive that this affords him, was the most apt to survive such a terrible situation, –
‘Those who know how close the connection is between the state of mind of a man – his courage and hope, or lack of them – and the state of immunity of his body will understand that the sudden loss of hope and courage can have a deadly effect.’[3]
He strongly correlates hope with courage, in the sense that one naturally follows the other; to have hope in an otherwise hopeless situation is to be courageous, and, simultaneously, one must have the courage to remain hopeful.
Many writers argue from a similar position – that an individual’s mental courage, and general mental state, has a greater effect on that individual’s life and future than their physical wellbeing does. On the contrary, it may be argued that there is a (perhaps stronger) link between someone’s physical wellbeing and their mental state, as is argued by philosophers in support of mind-body monism. This is outside the scope of this paper, however.
Physical courage is perhaps the more instinctive and basic of the two forms, namely because of the obvious threat that the physical world plays in the lives of every creature. It is nonetheless equally important in terms of its effect on people and the worlds they inhabit.
Moral Courage
Moral courage is trickier to define, largely thanks to the ambiguity (and potential relativity) that continues to exist around the concepts of morality and ethics. Like physical courage, however, moral courage may broadly be defined as the perseverance of one’s moral convictions in the face of threatening and overwhelming perceived ‘immorality’ – this may also be known as one’s ‘moral character.’ This particular definition is closely related to ideas of honour, faith, and righteousness, and is strongly correlated to religious beliefs.
An individual’s moral character is deemed highly important to virtue ethicists, as this particular philosophy takes one’s personal growth and excellency to be the highest moral good from which others follow. This is in contrast to consequentialist ethical theories (such as utilitarianism,) in which the goodness of an outcome is the most important ethical marker.
Moral courage is also highly esteemed in the Christian tradition as a core component of the Christian Ethical Framework as handed down by the teachings of Jesus Christ and recorded in the Bible. Within the ‘Sermon on the Mount,’ for example, it is recorded that Jesus taught the masses –
‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’[4]
Christians are called to embody the virtues laid down by Jesus, despite adversity, and so thereby display courage in the face of what they may consider to be an immoral temptation or coercion, even as significant a threat as death. It is taught that to die in faith is better than to live in insincerity, since the faithful are guaranteed to go to heaven.
Early Christian history, in which Christendom came into conflict with as-of-yet un-Christianised traditional cultures and belief systems, includes many stories of displays of Christian righteousness and courage. This may be exemplified in the history of the Christianisation of Viking Age Scandinavia, in which the warlike, pagan Norse were converted over a relatively short period (~200 years.) Many Christians were captured and enslaved by Viking raiders, especially from the English coastline by Danes, and examples of these slaves having the courage to maintain their Christian faith, despite their circumstances, may have impressed the Norse, whose allegiance was otherwise bought and sold.
Philosopher and theologian, Søren Kierkegaard, developed his idea of courage from his Christian faith. In his work, The Sickness unto Death, Kierkegaard states that one learns courage concerning greater and lesser dangers; that is, facing greater dangers immunises one against lesser ones –
‘…he acquired this courage by learning to fear what is even more horrifying. A person always acquires courage in this way: when one fears a greater danger, a person always has courage to confront a lesser one…’[5]
He argues that this is particularly true of devout Christians, whose belief in the ultimate and eternal torment of Hell immunises them to the relatively lowly distress of the physical world.
Moral courage is a particularly important form of courage for human communities / societies, as it is the process that allows each to re-assert themselves in the eyes of history; a group that does not believe in itself or its own cause is not destined to exist for any significant period of time.
Definitions of Courage within Philosophy
Some of the earliest writings on courage come from Plato. His dialogue, Laches, tackles the idea of courage directly, but does not come to a concrete definition – rather, it is merely agreed that courage is ‘one of the parts of virtue.’[6]
Moral courage is exemplified more strongly, however, in another of Plato’s writings, the Apology of Socrates. Within the Apology, Socrates is accused by three major citizens of Athens of ‘corrupting the youth,’ convicted by a majority of his jurors, and sentenced to death by drinking hemlock. Despite such a sentence, Socrates maintains good cheer and courage and accepts his fate without regret or fear. He says:
‘The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.’[7]
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics provides a more comprehensive definition of courage. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, courage is a virtue, and considered a middle-way (a ‘Golden Mean’) between two extremes (‘vices.’) A distinction, therefore, must be made between these two extremes – cowardice and recklessness. In cowardice, a lack of sufficient courage renders an individual impotent, as they ‘exceed in fear’ relative to their confidence. In recklessness, an overabundance of courage renders their actions intellectually lacking –
‘…if he feared nothing … he would be sort of madman or insensible.’[8]
Furthermore, the rash individual is often ‘a pretender to courage’; that is, someone who is reckless may be compensating for their true nature (cowardice) by over-emphasising an apparent expression of confidence.
Aristotle aligns true courage with the concept of nobility. He asserts that ‘to the courageous person, courage is noble,’ and so such a person will act with courage ‘for the sake of what is noble’;
‘The courageous person will be undaunted so far as is humanly possible … he will stand his ground for the sake of what is noble (since this is the end of virtue) in the right way and as reason requires.’[9]
By stipulating courageous acts as dependent upon being done ‘in the right way’ and as ‘reason requires’, Aristotle introduces a further aspect of what must define courage. Courage is predicated on, and must be tempered by, both intelligence and the ability to act. The ability to act ties in with ideas of moral agency. A ‘moral agent’ is an individual that has the ability to make moral decisions in a particular situation, and is not hindered by circumstance; the opposite of a moral agent, therefore, is a ‘moral patient.’ It can be argued that only moral agents may be courageous – that is, only those who are able to act courageously in a daunting moral situation have the moral authority and responsibility to do so, and those who do not (‘moral patients’) should not be considered cowardly for their inaction.
In Stoicism, courage is one of the four primary virtues espoused by Stoic philosophers, alongside justice, temperance, and wisdom. Stoics take the goal of life not to be successful in any particular endeavour, but rather to seek eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία,) a Greek term commonly translated as ‘true, full happiness.’[10] Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and famous Stoic philosopher, writes in his Meditations –
‘You have experienced many wanderings, without finding happiness. ’Tis not found in philosophical arguments, nor in riches, nor in fame, nor in sensuality. Not at all. Where, then, is it to be found? … By retaining firmly the great maxims from which our desires and actions flow … “that nothing is truly good to a man, which does not make him just, temperate, courageous, and free: and that nothing can be evil to a man, which gives him not the contrary dispositions.”’[11]
Ultimately, philosophers differ on their interpretation of the role courage plays in the human condition, but each acknowledges this role to be an important aspect of living as a human being. Most, beyond perhaps hedonistic philosophies, would agree that the ‘ebb and flow’ of threat and overcoming, negativity and positivity, are one of the key ‘spices of life’ that make it interesting, and allow individuals the chance to move beyond their inherent qualities.
Conclusion
Courage is a fundamental human trait that is not easy to define concretely – rather, it is a set of patterns that may be witnessed and expressed by individuals in a near infinite number of situations. Courage is always considered a virtue and worthy of calculated practice, for the benefit of both the individual and the groups to which they belong.
Courage extends beyond only the greatest acts; one may be considered equally courageous in going to war as in speaking publicly to a large audience. The upper and lower boundaries (recklessness and cowardice respectively) within which courage is situated are a constantly shifting parameter that change according to each unique circumstance, inextricably linked with the particular moment, the characteristics of the moral agent and patients, the cultural standards and ideals of the contemporary society etc.
Throughout history, there have been multitude examples of what was considered courageous behaviour of the time, and courage continues to be an important virtue in the modern world. Individual actions that may not have been thought of as courageous in the past may be re-evaluated as such in the future, and inform our contemporary conception. Courage is largely linked with the moral and ethical attitudes of individuals, rather than the societies, laws, or customs in which they inhabit.
However, courage is not entirely relative – at its most basic, courage is the interception of profound will and perseverance with threat and peril, from which the human spirit is tested, and character is formed. Without the fear of danger, courage would not be necessary, and perhaps life itself would lose any aspect of meaning, as Viktor Frankl argues.
References
[1] Churchill, W. (1931). Unlucky Alfonso. Colliers. (As cited in Quote Investigator, 2019). https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/14/courage/
[2] The Victoria Cross. (n.d.). National Army Museum. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/victoria-cross
[3] Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s Search for Meaning (Trans. Lasch, I.). (6th Ed.). Beacon Press. p. 75.
[4] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2016.) Crossway Bibles. Mathew, 5:7. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7&version=ESV
[5] Kierkegaard, S. (2023). The Sickness unto Death (Trans. Kirmmse, B. H.). (1st Ed.). Liveright Publishing Co. p. 15.
[6] Plato. (1998). Laches (Trans. B. Jowett). Project Gutenberg. p. 18. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1584.html.images
[7] Plato. (2021). Apology. Open Road Integrated Media, Inc. p. 32.
[8] Aristotle. (2014). Nicomachean Ethics (2nd ed., Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) (Ed. R. Crisp). Cambridge University Press. p. 50. https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/aristotle-nicomachean-ethics/960833F3F69116D70510F59BBA7EFDED#contents
[9] Aristotle. (2014). Nicomachean Ethics. p. 49.
[10] Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1940). εὐδαιμονία. A Greek-English Lexicon. Clarendon Press https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=eu)daimoni/a
[11] Hutcheson, F. (2007). The Meditations of the Emperor, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Ed. Moor, J. & Silverthorne, M). (1st Ed). Liberty Fund, Inc. p. 95.
- ↑ Churchill, W. (1931). Unlucky Alfonso. New York: Colliers. (As cited in Quote Investigator, 2019). [In quoteinvestigator.com]