If a situation causes fear in one person, then people typically believe that it will cause fear in everyone else. Is courage doing something dangerous or difficult in the absence of fear? For most people flying in a plane across country is not courageous, however, would it be considered courageous for someone who has an extreme fear of flying? Is courage doing something that may cause harm to oneself to help another, or is it only if that situation is filled with fear. Although courage and fear have been thoroughly defined, and the average person would say that they know exactly what they are, there is too much subjectivity in the definitions of those words so they must first be objectively defined. Courage is usually defined as placing oneself in jeopardy (physically, mentally, emotionally, or socially) in the presence of fear or perceived fear to improve a situation, for a belief, or to help someone (to include animals to an extent). If someone is not capable of feeling fear, can they ever be courageous? Aristotle would answer no that question. Aristotle believed that a courageous person is one who "faces fearful things as he ought and as reason directs for the sake of what is noble"(Pears,2004). Now, with the advancements in technology, and specifically biology, I believe that courage is nothing more than a physical response to both internal psychological stimuli and external environmental conditions.
             There are several internal psychological factors involved with courage. Rachman (2004) believes that confidence, competence, and situational demands are among the most important factors. I believe that these factors are important, but I believe that fear is more important.
             Fear is the most important internal psychological stimuli that must be present in order for courage to exist. Without fear, there would be no courage. So, we must take a closer look at fear if we want to understand courage. Everyone experiences fear at some ...