This sounds like a workable definition to me, albeit much like one of the suggested definitions in this post — a definition which required characterization of a ‘soul’ — so also the definition you propose requires some commonality about meaning of ‘conscience’, or more specifically, commonality about standards of morality. Outside of:
Do Not Steal
Do Not Accuse Falsely
Do Not Commit Murder
it does not appear standards of morality remain universal. Even here, when the false accuser also is the judge, society is beginning to allow more and more of false accusation to have essence of truth.
By the way, false accusation is not the same as belligerence. Belligerence threatens actions so antagonists proceed with caution. Belligerence utilizes threats of extreme actions, threats whose credibility cannot be undermined a priori, threats the person threatening has capacity to implement with objective of inducement of antagonists to be more cautious to gain an advantage. The advantage gained can for instance be the difference between winning peace and having to wage war e.g. USA vs. North Korea. Belligerence forces an antagonist to weigh costs to be incurred in the event belligerence were to turn out to be backed up with commensurate action.
Attempts at defining courage always perhaps will require characterization of meaning of some term ensconced within the definition. I dare say, however, that conditional on characterization of conscience to be consistent with highest ideals possible, the definition proferred in this post is better than all of the other candidates explicitly considered.
What do I consider to be highest ideals of conscience?
Honor of other people’s existence
Do Not Steal
Do Not Accuse Falsely, especially when the accuser also is the judge
Do Not Commit Murder
Do Not Commit Adultery unless both parties to a marriage agree to multiple party sexual relationships
Do Not Covet What Belongs to Your Neighbor — every preceding morality grows out of this one, hence its importance over every other one. This is immorality in the heart, immorality which eventually shows up as actions
The problem with definitions always is, relative to descriptions of essence of a thing, they lack depth. Using what I deem to be the best definition of courage in this post, and characterizations of morality, we still are unable to conclude that outing the company you work for in context of their pursuit of immoral actions is an act of courage. If we substitute the definition, “courage is wise endurance of pursuit of love for others,” not everyone will agree outing the company you work for is courageous because they question the wisdom and love of the action. After all, innocent people can lose jobs in context of such endeavors. Substitute “courage is wise endurance of standing up for what is right,” and we again require characterization of what is right.
I dare say philosophers have come up with a challenge — definition of courage — which can be basis of thousands of thesis or dissertations, yet remain fertile ground for continuation of debate.
