“Capacity or tendency to apply moral effort (Kmac) to overcome stress in the pursuit of moral foundations (Haidt).” Mathematically: Moral courage = Virtue * Stress. So if we also say Vice = 1 / Virtue, we also have Moral Courage = Stress / Vice, which in plain English means “the more stress it takes to break down your self-control, the more moral courage you have.”
Prove me wrong. What’s nice about stress is you can measure it en masse using vices as a proxy, which is a prima facie case for my definition. But we’d have to break that out into things like acute stress, chronic stress, fear, pain, etc.
>Googles “measurement of fear”
>NSA be like “raise the threat level on that one”
If it doesn’t make you cackle it’s not real science.
Aeoli Pera 
Are stress and virtue flipped in this?
It takes infinite moral courage to make a virtuous choice when there is no stress?
Whoops, should be Virtue * Stress. I.e. If two populations have the same level of virtue (defined here as the inverse of vice) but one of them is under higher stress, then the one under higher stress has greater moral courage.
Fixed now.
Is it so?
Given “don’t kill babies” (murder) is a greater virtue than “Yes, those jeans make you look fat” (white lie) and the stress is equal;
Then is should take more moral courage for smaller virtues.
I disagree. Refraining from infanticide is easier than refraining from deleterious niceties.
How are you defining vices and virtues?
Your own definition, or some others?
In the abstract, unmeasurable sense: each individual’s superego. In practical, measurable terms…that’s what we need to figure out. Some of the vagueness is intentional for theoretical clarity, but most is because I haven’t figured it out yet.