Even a small doubt about the worthiness of a cause can rationalize flight or inaction as can a small question about one s ability to deal with the threat. If these doubts are not justified, then the level of confidence is not appropriate. Obviously, sometimes avoidance of danger or threat is appropriate, but many cases arise, small and large, in which avoidance is falsely rationalized as the course of action even if the fear accurately reflects the situation. What is called today moral courage provides many examples. Protecting our insecure ego facilitates a great deal of moral cowardice.
Low confidence is a major block to courage even when the fear involved is justified and appropriate.
Of the other three negative possibilities two lend themselves toward rashness. Someone may be a poor judge of danger and her level of fear may thus be inappropriately low yet her level of confidence in her abilities or in the cause at hand may not be excessive. Such a case, which would lead to rash action, is a misreading of danger and a poor response to it. Similarly, a person can be overconfident yet have appropriate fear and this could also lead to rashness. Consider a war scene where a soldier is well aware that death is possible and fears dying as much as his buddy.