But what about when people risk their lives to save other people? They're not really doing it for a thrill.
Maybe they are.
Granted there very well may be some people who don't do it for the thrill, but it doesn't have to be a thrill for it to be the greater of the psychologically satisfying choices.
Someone who has enough awareness of themselves would probably have the foresight to know they'd hate themselves if they didn't try and save the person.
Then you're still picking the easier one.
Is it necessarily courageous if you're presented with a boolean situation wherein neither outcome is favorable? I mean if the rigors of the world require one to choose from two insufferable actions (even in an ultimate situation where death is in question) choosing the one that would be more self-satisfying (or least damaging) is only natural. If you choose wrong, then it's likely because you didn't know. Not because you were brave and you wanted to challenge yourself.
I'm really trying to approach this issue with a clean value-slate.
In the example I provided, boredom is worse than death. Or perhaps failure to complete is worse.
So the participants do the cowardly thing by risking their lives.
But then, perhaps this answers the question "where does courage come from" in that courage comes from valuing things that might put life and limb at risk, in which case, it's easier to be courageous.
This isn't a joke. I've been called courageous before. I've been called bold... brave... I don't really think I am. I'd rather be fired than bored/insulted. So I either joke around to the point of annoyance, or taunt the other employees, or overtly gamble or condescend to the other employees or lash out and whatever else I do.
Of course, they view it as boldness, which is favorable (or at least entertaining), so I'm not fired.
How backwards.
But the point remains that these bold things I do that someone more timid wouldn't, are actually the easy way out for me, and likely are for the others who earn public approval by what appears to be self sacrificing.
Essentially I'm splitting the question the question by asking whether one can be courageous if one chooses what's easier and
then answering the rest. In typical psychology, the most immediately intuitive idea is that survival is the lesser of all evils, but I honestly believe the human survival instinct can be switched off (the suicide rate basically proves it...) being perhaps not so strong itself, but only strongly supported by evolutionary implementation. Where the survival instinct is shut off, those mechanisms might still work, thence having to focus their energies elsewhere (thrill seeking as an example).
If you're strictly talking about playing chess in a fire, then I agree.
I'm not. My example was intended as an abstract icon.
Thrill, death, or ignorance, none of which indicate courage.
Which is my point...
I like these questions.
First thing in a while that made me really think.