Chapter 6: Moral Character PDF

## Chapter 6: Moral Character ### Overview The discussion in this chapter focuses on moral character. It contrasts the idea with the concepts of character and personality in psychology. Also, it raises the questions of assessment and development of moral character. ### Objectives At the end of t...

## Chapter 6: Moral Character ### Overview The discussion in this chapter focuses on moral character. It contrasts the idea with the concepts of character and personality in psychology. Also, it raises the questions of assessment and development of moral character. ### Objectives At the end of the chapter, you should be able to: 1. Identify some character traits. 2. Explain how character can influence actions. A study on character approaches ethics in a way different from what has been discussed so far. Much of ethics is concerned with knowing the standards of what is good and acting consistently according to those standards, both of which are not easy. Ethical theorists do not agree on the criteria of goodness. Applied ethicists do not agree on how standards should translate into action in specific circumstances. Even if one knows what is good and how to act, there is no guarantee that one would actually act that way. Knowledge does not always translate into action. There are too many variables, and results tend to be unpredictable. A study on moral character provides insights that would not be available from an action-oriented approach. Even if one could be trained to act morally, it would not necessarily make one good. Ethics, good life for that matter, is more than just behavior modification. It is also about character development. ### Character and Personality People change as new experiences bring new information and new insights. New ideas replace old beliefs. Acquired abilities lead to new choices that change one's way of facing life's challenges. New patterns of thought and feelings lead to new patterns of behavior. However, the process of change is gradual. At any given time, some patterns of thought and action are dominant and persistent that they characterize a person. Adolescence is the stage in life when one "begins to view self-defining traits as stable across time and in various situations." Whether or not you can describe well how you became what you are know, to some extent you know yourself. You know what traits make you similar to others, just as you know what makes you different from them. You may feel confident that significant others know and accept you for what you are; they have some idea on what they can realistically expect from you. At the same time, you know some other people. You know their individual preferences, habits, likes, and dislikes; to some extent you can predict their behavior. Even those you do not know well, you may label them based on your impressions of their appearance or behavior, which correlates with some trait. Labelling comes with expectations. When someone's behavior deviates from expectation, then it is seen as uncharacteristic of the person. **Character** comes from the Greek *charakter* (χαρακτήρ) referring to the mark impressed upon a coin. The word came to mean the mark that distinguishes one from others, the set of qualities that makes one different from anyone else. Its meaning overlaps with what psychology calls personality; it suggests individual uniqueness. Both character and personality refer to consistent, observable traits. *Consistency* means that manifestations of a particular trait show some pattern. They are not random, but rather regular and to some extent predictable (which may pose a problem to the idea of freedom). Generally, they persist over time and are resistant to change. Moreover, manifestations of traits are not only experienced by the individual concerned, but they can also be observed by other people. **Personality** comes from the Latin *persona*, which refers to the theatrical mask that actors would wear in an ancient Greek play corresponding to their respective roles. Since all actors were males, those who played female roles would wear masks that bearing female features. In short, persona originally referred to one's public image, which might or might not accurately reflect one's real traits. ### Character in Psychology In psychology, individuals can be categorized based on their respective personalities. While the term personality is hard to define, it has two fundamental features: *consistency*, which refers to an individual's coherent traits and action patterns; and *distinction*, which refers to differences among individuals. Those having common traits are put together in the same category. Individual differences come in the varying degrees that such traits manifest in an individual's thought and behavioral patterns. One of the key traits in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is the "thinking/ feeling" dichotomy. It refers to one's tendency to process stimuli intellectually or to react to them emotionally. "Thinkers" tend to process their experiences intellectually, while "feelers" tend to react emotionally. Tendency comes at varying degrees. Some "thinkers" can almost totally detach themselves emotionally from something and analyze it dispassionately. Some "feelers" impulsively react to experiences without taking much time for deliberation. Some fall somewhere between those extremes. They act motivated by strong emotions but only after rationally weighing the pros and cons of available options. Personality traits do not come in strict binaries, though. Their manifestations may vary relative to situations. An ethical implication of the thinking/feeling dichotomy is the critique of Kohlberg's theory by the American psychologist Carol Gilligan. If rightness is judged based on rules, should caring people change their moral psychology, that is, “think" more and feel less, to fit in, or else be automatically wrong? Conversely, if rightness is judged based on care, should rule-based “thinkers” start to feel more and analyze less? Individuals differ as each person's specific combination of traits, as well as the varying degrees of each one, distinguishes one from another. For example, even if two individuals are introverts, their respective degrees of introversion may vary. One may be more or less tolerant of large crowds than the other. When other traits that may not be emphasized in standardized personality tests (e.g., intelligence, interests, and physical condition) are factored in, the more people differ in their patterns of thought and action. ### Character in Ethics In ethics, the meaning of character goes beyond mere individual distinction. It refers to a person's moral identity, the presence or absence of certain qualities or traits. *Moral character* is about excellence, not difference. It is about refinement of traits, not individual uniqueness. It is not just a single quality; it is the set of qualities that makes one an ethically admirable person. In ethics, the term *character* implies *value judgment*. Character refers to what a person *is*, not merely what a person *appears* to be. It is an inner identity; it is not always apparent. This raises problems and questions. Can we objectively identify and assess our own traits? We have an almost instinctive self-bias. We tend to exaggerate our strengths and downplay our weaknesses. Can we accurately assess other people's character? This is important because a “moral assessment of a person's character amounts to a condemnation, not just of the actions the person performs, but of what the person is 'really like.'" Unlike personality, *character* cannot be *reliably identified and measured* through *standardized tests*. One is likely to answer personality tests honestly as there is no value judgment involved. For example, there is no ego investment in rating one's tendency to daydream. It seems neither good nor bad. In contrast, it might be costly to one's self-esteem and public image to admit one's tendency to violent outbursts or laziness, for example. Even harmless traits might not be reliably self-reported. How would one who is both honest and humble rate oneself in terms of honesty and humility? ### Virtues *Temperance*, a virtue, is moderation in the desire for pleasure. Moderation means "neither too much nor too less.” On one extreme are those with excessive desires. For them the more of a pleasurable thing, the better. The desire for more things than needed, while failing to appreciate what one already has, leads to greed. On the other extreme are people with less desire. This deficiency leads to laziness, a dull life, and ultimately a waste of human potential. *Temperance* moderates desire for pleasure relative to circumstances. If the object desired is not yet available, then one waits in optimistic resignation, patiently hoping for delayed gratification. When it is available, one takes only as much as needed and nothing more. With temperance, a person knows and observes limits. If the object desired is unrealistic or unattainable, then one accepts the frustration and moves on to something else without bitterness. It has been observed that degree of satisfaction depends much on individual threshold. *"Maximizers"* want to try everything and enjoy the best available. The more choices available the less likely that one can have all. In such case, even if a maximizer already has a lot, he or she would still be dissatisfied, feeling that he or she missed out on something. In contrast, a *"satisficer"* would pick what is needed and not much more and consequently feels satisfied. “[T]he greatest maximizers are the least happy with the fruits of their effort." *Temperance* is a character trait that allows a person to appreciate what is available instead of feeling sorry for what could have been. It can make a difference in this age of consumerism. While popular culture promotes the idea that happiness depends on constant acquisition and consumption, some rich people find satisfaction in leading simple lives in spite of their wealth. They choose to have less even though they can afford to have more. *Character trait* influences actions and affects a person's quality of life. Moderation is common among the different virtues. In managing resources the ideal character trait is generosity. On one extreme is excessive spending that leads to waste. The other extreme is stinginess and not spending even for important things. When it comes to self-esteem, the ideal character trait is magnanimity. Too high opinion of oneself is vanity, and narcissism is one of its manifestations. Too low self-esteem leads to self-depreciation. *Courage* is the virtue that lies between rashness on one extreme and cowardice on the other. Rashness leads to taking unnecessary risk for disproportionate benefit. Cowardice keeps one from taking necessary risk for something valuable. ### Conclusion Character persists and tends to resist change. Yet it does change, though very slowly. Old neural connections do not just suddenly atrophy, and new neural connections do not just magically appear. Character refers to what a person *is*. Other people can observe its outward manifestations (i.e., one's consistent patterns of choices and actions), although they may not always be able to recognize or acknowledge it. *Virtues*, the good character traits, form an integral part of a person's way of thinking and acting - a way of life for that matter. Some virtues lie dormant for a while, only to surface when a situation calls for it. Some people may appear docile until they find themselves in a situation that brings out their inner courage. Courage is the virtue that enables other virtues to manifest. Some people can be easily intimidated to stand by what they believe is right. They need the courage to face criticism, rejection, or even violent opposition. *Courage* is an essential moral virtue. Character formation (that is, becoming a good person) is essential to the good life. ### References * Flanagan, Owen, and Rorty Amelie Oksenberg, eds. *Identity, Character and Morality: Essays in Moral Psychology*. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1997. * Gregory, Robert J. *Psychological Testing, History, Principles and Applications*. New York: Pearson Education, 2007. * Owens, Karen B. *Child and Adolescent Development: An Integrated Approach (USA: Wadsworth, 2006). * Schwartz, Barry. *The Tyranny of Choice*. Scientific American April 2004.