I agree with what you guys are saying wholeheartedly, but I wanted to add a slant to this. I really like threads that deal with things like this, because I believe people need to be a little more introspective about these types of qualities (along with things like strength of character, honor, integrity, etc.). Here's my addition to the mix:
I believe courage has a lot to do with putting an aim or a goal above the obstacles in front of it. In other words, it's about making something so important that you're willing to go through fear, pain, loss, or whatever else it takes to get to the other side. It's a mental process, and as such can be learned. However, I believe you can be brought up to have more inherent courage than your peers.
In the moral sense, courage is harder to exhibit with consistency. Often, moral issues don't carry with them the pain or hardship that phjysical things might, and a lot of people are able to justify why they bent the rules here and there. Ask anyone what it means to be honest, and they'll probably tell you it's about not lying; telling the truth even when it's difficult. But then ask them if they've ever lied. If they're honest, they have. Now ask them if they consider themselves honest people? Courage developed in the physical sense can carry over, which is why I am a big fan of individual sports like boxing, wrestling, etc. You're facing some very serious pain and hardship in the ring, but also in training to prepare. You learn that the end has to be more inmportant than the hardship between here and there. If you can't do that, you're going to be hurt and embarrassed in front of a crowd. It's why I love going camping for a week at a time with nothing but whatever I can cram into an Altoids can. It gets cold, and I get hungry, and I have to find a way to make things work. The obstacles have to be less important than the endgame. I think if you do things like that over a long enough period, you develop the foundation blocks of courage: confidence.
As with most things, though, the physical is easier. It's sort of pass or fail. You win the boxing match, or you don't, but either way, you went through it to the end. Most people can live with that. With moral issues, it's tougher. It's not just about pain, but guilt and shame as well. If you stole something from someone you cared about, greed gettingthe better of you for a moment, the event isn't over and done with. It has implications way down the road. Taken further, if you cheated on your wife or husband, you've had a serious moral lapse. Is it more courageous to come clean, own up to it, and take your lumps? Or would it have been more courageous to resist temptation in the first place? Since this is an academic discussion, could it also be courageous just to shut up forever and deal with your own guilt in silence?
Garland's right. "Right" and "wrong" are totally subjective things. The common thread in courage is that the end is made more important than the obstacles, and the course is pursued to its end regardless of the loss, pain, and suffering dealt along the way. No matter what your morals, no matter how you see right or wrong, that formula can still be applied.
|