Courage, in general opinion, is a virtue which characterizes only a part of human population, and its existence does not show any significant correlation with any determinant of biological nature. The virtues are often described as constant dispositions for a generally good behavior in any situation. There are, however, virtues which become discernible in specific situations only. It seems theoretically possible to distinguish elements of virtue. In reality, however, such a 'fragmentation' distorts its sense because it is 'particular virtues' that indicate that somebody is virtuous or not. Supererogation, a moral option, gives virtue a special characteristic. Human behavior is so diverse that people's motivations are not always clear. The 'virtuous' behavior springs from moral motivation whereas 'inhumanity' is just lack of the moral significance of actions of the human being. Courage is usually understood as a permanent human disposition for undertaking specific actions in difficult situations. This interpretation of the word clearly indicates some essential features of courage. First, courageous actions are intentional because there are no 'courageous people by chance'. Secondly, acts of courage do not result from compulsion because they are voluntary. Thirdly, courage is based on an already shaped hierarchy of values of an individual.In everyday life situations, unlike in the war time, the need to protect or save someone's life almost does not arise. Nowadays we do not have to fight for territories, food or honor, but we support our rights. In a commonly noticeable moral crisis, especially seen in public life, the virtue of courage which is the evidence of and protects one's commitments, is very desirable. Empty promises are not acts of courage but its complete lack. Commitments that do not exists cannot be supported. The author observes that a state of moral crisis results in the lack of philosophical education of society where moral vagueness dominates and philosophy should not promote mediocrity.