I agree...I think there are some courageous acts that stand alone without involving morals. But I don't think that any moral choice can be made without courage.

Ok...name one courageous act that can be made without involving the use of established morals....whatever they may be...and they don't have to be the 'conventional' moral code we might be thinking of.

Being a warrior and slaying hundreds of people for your country. Thats courageous...in true definition. Moral? I don't think so lol

Well what if moral acts are sanctioned and protected...say being a whistle blower comes with total protection, admiration and a horse ranch to boot?! Not so courageous to report the evil deeds going on seen as an insider. Right. But say whistle blowing comes with no protection. Then it would take courage.

say prosecuting a rapist comes with protection, a scholarship and a guaranteed job that you like and everyone is understanding and on your side to support you. Well doesn't take much courage.

I'm exaggerating to think about the points. I'm not saying this as fact just looking at the concepts.

There has to be something that threatens the morality, or threatens the love, or threatens the person being saved for courage to be called upon.

Maybe it is even courageous not to be apathetic.

But what about the courage to not stoop to someone else's level when they bait you...I think it's the context.Like in non violent protest. Ghandi changed tactics when his first approach brought on assualt to innocent protesters he actually called the protests off??? Then he meditated and got the "go for salt".

But What benefit to them comes from that act? Like you and I have spoken months ago, everything that someone does, that appears to be self-less has a payoff to the person...

So a warrior would get the payoff of his Courageous act of slaying those people...how? He does you know

Back to morals and courage. How does one decide or even know what is courageous without the moral baseline for the thought?

I was the one that said there are things that people do that ARE completely selfless that benefits them in no way lol remember??

I'm not saying he wouldn't get any payoff...but how is it moral to slay hundreds of people in a war? It's courageous...yes, he is putting HIS life on the line, but again...moral? i don't think so lol

depends on what his thought processes were in choosing to slay them.

And you may have SAID that there are things that people do that are completely self-less, HOWEVER you neglected to come up with ONE that couldn't be debunked...

I actually DID GIVE YOU an example..... if you didn't have early onset alzheimers you'd remember LOL haha....

No that example, I believe the closest one you had was about the nun, who didn't want to be a nun but God called her....that too had a pay off and we discussed it thoroughly...or so I thought

nope. try again....lol

well that was the closest you came to even having a chance so if there is another you never shared it with me...

There are LOTS of actions that require courage without any particular morality. Removing a hornet's nest. Wrestling an alligator. Rappelling down a cliff. Going to the dentist. Having surgery. Fairy tales are full of non-moral courage: slaying a dragon, for example. An evil person has to have the same courage as a noble person to accomplish it; courage subsists without morality. An evil person requires the same courage to remove a wasp's nest as a moral person.

I'm intrigued by Laura's notion that courage can exist without morality, but not morality without courage. Come to think of it, I know a lot of people who see themselves as very moral people who are really cowards, which supports Laura's view. We see that in the religious folk stories about Pharisees, for example. We also see it in people who believe that because they simply proclaim a positive value, they have *demonstrated* that value, like slapping a ribbon magnet on a car or a rubber bracelet on a wrist in order to superficially endorse a value without any real action. Or a therapist who says "I care" but never shows that they do. Or someone who gives you a polite well-wish, but doesn't show any real inclination toward deeper care. Those would be examples of attitudes which reflect impeccable morals, but have no depth of courageous *action* to make them credible.

So maybe the progression of courage suggests that while courage *can* exist amorally, morality cannot exist without courage.

That's all I'm sayin...
lol