structure for 'Ethics'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 2. Elements of Virtue Theory / e. Character

[concern with good persons, rather than actions]

46 ideas
For man character is destiny [Heraclitus]
     Full Idea: For man character is destiny.
     From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B119), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 4.40.23
     A reaction: This is the extreme opposite of Sartre's existentialist claim that we can entirely change ourselves. Personally I am with Heraclitus, though I don't see why our destined character shouldn't be modified (e.g. by education).
Virtue comes more from habit than character [Critias]
     Full Idea: More men are good through habit than through character.
     From: Critias (fragments/reports [c.440 BCE], B09), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 3.29.41
The way you spend your time will form your character [Antiphon]
     Full Idea: One's character must necessarily grow like that with which one spends the greater part of the day.
     From: Antiphon (fragments/reports [c.439 BCE], B62), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 3.31.41
We should ask what sort of people we want to be [Socrates]
     Full Idea: Socrates: What sort of person should one be?
     From: Socrates (reports of career [c.420 BCE]), quoted by Plato - Gorgias 487e
I would rather be a victim of crime than a criminal [Plato]
     Full Idea: Socrates: If I had to choose between doing wrong and having wrong done to me, I'd prefer the latter to the former.
     From: Plato (Gorgias [c.387 BCE], 469c)
     A reaction: cf Democritus 68B45
A person of good character sees the truth about what is actually fine and pleasant [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: What makes the man of good character stand out furthest is the fact that he sees the truth in every kind of situation: he is a sort of standard and yardstick of what is fine and pleasant.
     From: Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1113a32)
     A reaction: A question for Aristotle seems to be whether practical reason ('phronesis') is sufficient to enable one to see what is truly fine and pleasant. Phronesis must crucially involve perception of values, and not just of what is expedient.
People develop their characters through the activities they pursue [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: In every sphere of conduct people develop qualities corresponding to the activities that they pursue.
     From: Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1114a07)
     A reaction: Correct. Hence the crucial thing for a good human life is the choice of activity when young. We can impose activity on the young, but the top aim of education is to teach people how to make good choices. ('Fat chance!' I hear you say..)
When people speak of justice they mean a disposition of character to behave justly [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: When people speak of justice we see that they all mean that kind of state of character that disposes them to perform just acts, and behave in a just manner, and wish for what is just.
     From: Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1129a07)
     A reaction: No remark shows more clearly that for the Greeks morality is a matter of character, rather than of actions or rules. This doesn't totally disagree with Plato's 'Republic', where justice turns out to be harmony in an individual person.
Character can be heroic, excellent, controlled, uncontrolled, bad, or brutish [Aristotle, by Urmson]
     Full Idea: For Aristotle there are six possible states of character: heroic excellence, excellence, self-control, lack of self-control, badness of character, and brutishness.
     From: report of Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1145a15) by J.O. Urmson - Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean p.158
     A reaction: The two extremes are odd, but the distinction between bad and brutish is interesting, and the distinction between control and true excellence is vital (pace Kant).
The three states of character to avoid are vice, 'akrasia' and brutishness [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: There are three kinds of states of character to be avoided: vice, 'akrasia' and brutishness.
     From: Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1145a16)
     A reaction: The three are distinguished by the state of their reason: vice exhibits bad reason, akrasia exhibits right reason (but no control), and brutishness exhibits an absence of reason. A good distinction, which should be used to judge criminals.
It is very hard to change a person's character traits by argument [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: It is hard, if not impossible, to remove by argument the traits that have long since been incorporated in the character.
     From: Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1179b18)
     A reaction: True, and a strong justification for Aristotle's approach, that the crucial element in morality is the early creation of character. But teachers can argue about what to teach.
Character virtues (such as courage) are of the non-rational part, which follows the rational part [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: The virtues of character belong to the part that is non-rational, but whose nature is to follow the rational part; we do not say what a man's character is like when we say that he is wise or clever, but when we say that he is gentle or daring.
     From: Aristotle (Eudemian Ethics [c.333 BCE], 1220a11)
     A reaction: In the Nichomachean Ethics it appears that good character is the 'harmony' between the two parts; here it sounds more like obedience. It seems to me that our rational part is a failure if it is not sensitive to the needs of the irrational part.
Character (éthos) is developed from habit (ethos) [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Character (éthos), as the word itself indicates, is developed from habit (ethos).
     From: Aristotle (Eudemian Ethics [c.333 BCE], 1220a36)
     A reaction: Aristotle goes in for dubious etymologies, but this one sounds quite significant, and supports his view that habit is central to virtue. We would lose nothing in English if we said 'what are her habits?' instead of 'what is her character?'.
Character is shown by what is or is not enjoyed, and virtue chooses the mean among them [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Virtue is that state of character which chooses the mean, relative to us, in things pleasant and unpleasant, all those in respect of which a man is said to have a certain sort of character according as he enjoys or suffers pain from them.
     From: Aristotle (Eudemian Ethics [c.333 BCE], 1227b08)
     A reaction: The 'mean' should be understood as what is appropriate, rather than the mere average. Strong anger, for example, is sometimes appropriate. Does Aristotle rule out wild laughter, or frenetic dancing? Is a state of ecstasy wicked?
We judge character not by their actions, but by their reasons for actions [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: It is from his choosing that we judge what sort of person someone is; that is, what that for whose sake he does something is, not what he does.
     From: Aristotle (Eudemian Ethics [c.333 BCE], 1228a03)
     A reaction: Not entirely true. It can be sufficient to reveal their character that a person does some particular thing, as novelists know. When Hud parks his car in her flowerbed, we don't need to enquire about his reason. But see 1228a16!
We value our own character, whatever it is, and we should respect the characters of others [Epicurus]
     Full Idea: We value our characters as our own personal possessions, whether they are good and envied by men or not. We must regard our neighbours' characters thus too, if they are respectable.
     From: Epicurus (Principle Doctrines ('Kuriai Doxai') (frags) [c.290 BCE], 15)
     A reaction: I like this because it introduces a metaethical dimension to the whole problem of virtue. We should value our own character - so should we try to improve it? Should we improve so much as to become unrecognisable?
The foolish gradually fill with evil, like a slowly-filled water-jar [Anon (Dham)]
     Full Idea: The falling of drops of water will in time fill a water-jar. Even so the foolish man becomes full of evil, although he gather it little by little.
     From: Anon (Dham) (The DhammaPada [c.250 BCE], §9.121)
     A reaction: This coincides closely with Aristotle's view of moral education. Maybe a wise man can maintain one small vice. Not all slopes are slippery.
The wise gradually fill with good, like a slowly-filled water-jar [Anon (Dham)]
     Full Idea: The falling of drops of water will in time fill a water-jar. Even so the wise man becomes full of good, although he gather it little by little.
     From: Anon (Dham) (The DhammaPada [c.250 BCE], §9.122)
     A reaction: Again, this is like Aristotle's proposal of how to educate people in virtue. In my experience, there is no guarantee that small acts of politeness and charity will eventually guarantee goodness of character. Thought is also needed.
Character is ruined by not looking back over our pasts, since the future rests on the past [Seneca]
     Full Idea: What really ruins our characters is the fact that none of us looks back over his life. We think a little about what we are going to do, and fail to think about what we have done, yet plans for the future depend on the past.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 083)
     A reaction: One always assumes that writings about the wisdom of daily life will be one mass of clichés, but Seneca proves otherwise. With a pang I realise that I may be too guilty of not thinking about the past. I've even been proud of it.
True greatness is never allowing events to disturb you [Seneca]
     Full Idea: There is no more reliable proof of greatness than to be in a state where nothing can happen to make you disturbed.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On Anger (Book 3) [c.60], §06)
     A reaction: He specifically opposes Aristotle's view that there are times when anger is appropriate, and failure to be very angry indeed is a failure of character.
In the Discourses choice [prohairesis] defines our character and behaviour [Epictetus, by Frede,M]
     Full Idea: In Epictetus's 'Discourses' the notion of choice [prohairesis] plays perhaps the central role. It is our prohairesis which defines us a person, as the sort of person we are; it is our prohairesis which determines how we behave.
     From: report of Epictetus (The Discourses [c.56]) by Michael Frede - A Free Will 3
     A reaction: Frede is charting the gradual move in Greek philosophy from action by desire, reason and habit to action by the will (which then turns out to be 'free'). Character started as dispositions and ended as choices.
There is not much point in only becoming good near the end of your life [Montaigne]
     Full Idea: It is almost better never to become a good man at all than to do so tardily, understanding how to live when you have no life left.
     From: Michel de Montaigne (III.10 On Restraining your Will [1580], p.1142)
     A reaction: A very nice perspective, which I don't recall Aristotle mentioning. It does, though, reinforce Aristotle's belief that early training is essential.
We don't choose our characters, yet we still claim credit for the actions our characters perform [Schelling]
     Full Idea: Nobody has chosen their character; and yet this does not stop anybody attributing the action which follows from his character to themself as a free action.
     From: Friedrich Schelling (The Ages of the World [1810], I.93)
     A reaction: This pinpoints a very nice ambivalence about our attitudes to our own characters. We all have some pride and shame about who we are, without having chosed who we are. At least when we are young. But we make the bed we lie in.
A man's character can be learned from a single characteristic action [Schopenhauer]
     Full Idea: As a botanist can recognise the whole plant from one leaf, …so an accurate knowledge of a man's character can be arrived at from a single characteristic action.
     From: Arthur Schopenhauer (Parerga and Paralipomena [1851], VIII:118)
     A reaction: Very true. Great novelists specialise in such observations. One word can reveal a character, as well as one action.
We contain multitudes of characters, which can brought into the open [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: There is a multitude of characters hidden within each one of us: and attempts should be made to allow some of them to appear.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1884-85 [1884], 25[021])
     A reaction: So character is not fate, contrary to Heraclitus (his hero). We are more inclined now to see varied characters as social roles (as in Irving Goffman). This idea challenges it, with our intrinsic nature containing variety.
What does not kill us makes us stronger [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: What does not kill us makes us stronger.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Writings from Late Notebooks [1887], 10[87])
     A reaction: A famous remark! Actually, of course, a very stressful human life tends to be much shorter than a comfortable one, but Nietzsche wouldn't equate strength with longevity. Nowadays we are all a bunch of softies.
The good people are those who improve; the bad are those who deteriorate [Dewey]
     Full Idea: The bad man is the man who no matter how good he has been is beginning to deteriorate, to grow less good. The good man is the man who no matter how morally unworthy he has been is moving to become better.
     From: John Dewey (The Middle Works (15 vols, ed Boydston) [1910], 12:181), quoted by David Hildebrand - Dewey 3 'Reconstruct'
     A reaction: Although a slightly improving rat doesn't sound as good as a slightly deteriorating saint, I have some sympathy with this thought. The desire to improve seems to be right at the heart of what makes good character.
We see our character as a restricting limit, but also as an unshakable support [Weil]
     Full Idea: Our character appears to us as a limit by which we do not want to be imprisoned, …but also as a support that we want to believe is unshakable.
     From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.100)
     A reaction: A nice perception. It is fairly easy to criticise, or even laugh at, one's own actions, but extremely hard to criticise our own character. Maybe we all wish we were more determined in our projects, but not much else.
We don't see character in a single moment, but only over a period of time [Weil]
     Full Idea: Character is constant over a period of time; the way a person is at a single moment does not at all reflect the character of this person. We do, however, concede that character changes.
     From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.98)
     A reaction: I do think, though, that there are moments in behaviour which are hugely revealing of character, even in a single remark. But I agree that most single moments do not show much.
The concept of character is at the centre of morality [Weil]
     Full Idea: We cannot pose a moral problem without putting the concept of character at its centre.
     From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.98)
     A reaction: The question for Aristotle (which I derive from Philippa Foot) is whether moral goodness simply is good character, or whether it is the actions (or even the consequences). Weil is close to modern virtue theory here.
We modify our character by placing ourselves in situations, or by attending to what seems trivial [Weil]
     Full Idea: We can modify our character, by putting ourselves in circumstances that will act on us from the outside, …or by the orientation of our attention in the moments that appear most insignificant or indifferent in our lives.
     From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.99)
     A reaction: I've never seen anyone address this question (apart from Aristotle's emphasis on training habits). Choosing your source for current affairs information strikes me as very important. What you read, what you watch, who you spend time with…
In becoming what we want to be we create what we think man ought to be [Sartre]
     Full Idea: In creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be.
     From: Jean-Paul Sartre (Existentialism and Humanism [1945], p.293), quoted by Kevin Aho - Existentialism: an introduction 7 'Anything'
     A reaction: I recall this being one of my earliest thoughts about morality - that in everything we do we are all role models for the people around us. For me, that leads to virtue theory.
It would be better to point to failings of character, than to moral wrongness of actions [Anscombe]
     Full Idea: It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', or 'unjust'.
     From: G.E.M. Anscombe (Modern Moral Philosophy [1958], p.183)
     A reaction: People are indeed much more struck by the suggestion that they have a weakness of character, rather than that they have just done something wrong. This is Anscombe's first great appeal for a return to virtue as the basis of ethics.
People can act out of vanity without being vain, or even vain about this kind of thing [Foot]
     Full Idea: It makes sense to say that a man acts out of vanity on a particular occasion although he is not in general vain, or even vain about this kind of thing.
     From: Philippa Foot (Free Will as Involving Determinism [1957], p.69)
     A reaction: Aristotle tells us that virtues and vices are habits, and also have an intellectual component, implying that the person believes in that sort of behaviour. Anyone can have 'a little moment of vanity'.
Someone is a good person because of their rational will, not their body or memory [Foot]
     Full Idea: To speak of a good person is to speak of an individual not in respect of his body, or of faculties such as sight and memory, but as concerns his rational will (his 'will as controllable by reason').
     From: Philippa Foot (Natural Goodness [2001], 5)
     A reaction: She more or less agrees with Kant that the only truly good moral thing is a good will, though she has plenty of other criticisms of his views.
An admirable human being should have certain kinds of emotional responses [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: One's conception of an admirable human being implies that he should be disposed to certain kinds of emotional response, and not to others.
     From: Bernard Williams (Morality and the emotions [1965], p.225)
     A reaction: So are the good emotions an indicator of being a good person, or is that what their goodness consists of? The goodness must be cashed out in actions, and presumably good emotions both promise good actions, and motivate them.
It is important that a person can change their character, and not just be successive 'selves' [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: I want to emphasise the basic importance of the ordinary idea of a self or person which undergoes changes of character, as opposed to dissolving a changing person into a series of 'selves'.
     From: Bernard Williams (Persons, Character and Morality [1976], II)
     A reaction: [compressed] He mentions Derek Parfit for the rival view. Williams has the Aristotelian view, that a person has an essential nature, which endures through change, and explains that change. But that needs some non-essential character traits.
Kantians have an poor account of individuals, and insist on impartiality, because they ignore character [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: The Kantians' omission of character is a condition of their ultimate insistence on the demands of impartial morality, just as it is a reason to find inadequate their account of the individual.
     From: Bernard Williams (Persons, Character and Morality [1976], II)
     A reaction: This is also why the Kantian account of virtue is inadequate, in comparison with the Aristotelian view.
Maybe there is no such thing as character, and the virtues and vices said to accompany it [Harman]
     Full Idea: It may be the case that there is no such thing as character, no ordinary character traits of the sort people think there are, none of the usual moral virtues and vices.
     From: Gilbert Harman (Moral Philosophy meets social psychology [1999], 10.1)
     A reaction: This would be a devastating fact for virtue theory, if it were true. I don't believe it. He thinks patterns of behaviour result from circumstances, but we give accurate and detailed pictures of people's characters (esp. in novels).
If a person's two acts of timidity have different explanations, they are not one character trait [Harman]
     Full Idea: If Herbert is disposed to not speak in history class (but not other subjects), and explanation of this is different from his avoidance of roller coaster rides, then these two dispositions are not special cases of a single character trait.
     From: Gilbert Harman (Moral Philosophy meets social psychology [1999], 10.2)
     A reaction: A basic Harman argument for denying the existence of character (and hence of virtues). I just say that character traits are more complex than his caricature of them. If I keep imagining disaster and humiliation for myself, that is a character trait.
Virtue ethics might involve judgements about the virtues of actions, rather than character [Harman]
     Full Idea: There are variants of virtue ethics that do not require character traits in the ordinary sense. For example, moral thinking might be explicated by appeal to judgements about whether particular actions are just or courageous or whatever.
     From: Gilbert Harman (Moral Philosophy meets social psychology [1999], 10.7.1.1)
     A reaction: A very interesting proposal (from Judith Jarvis Thomson). This would flatly reject Aristotle, and one presumes that the judgement about the virtue of the action would largely be a matter of pondering cultural conventions (or, perhaps, consequences).
Characters are the masks worn by moral philosophies [MacIntyre]
     Full Idea: Characters are the masks worn by moral philosophies.
     From: Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory [1981], Ch. 3)
     A reaction: This may be presenting character in an excessively moral way. Being lively, for example, is a very distinctive trait of character, but hardly moral. This tells us why philosophers are interested in character, but not why other people are.
It is said that if an agent is not autonomous then their evil actions don't reflect on their character [Kekes]
     Full Idea: Liberals deny the reflexivity of evil, …to prevent the evil consequences of an agent's morally deplorable actions from redounding to their detriment. Evil actions are allowed to reflect on their agents only if the agents cause them autonomously.
     From: John Kekes (Against Liberalism [1997], 03.5)
     A reaction: A central question of morality is essentialising character. That is, when does an eater of carrots become a carrot-eater? When does a performer of wicked deeds become a wicked person? Never, say many liberals. Wrong, says Kekes.
We over-estimate the role of character traits when explaining behaviour [Goldie]
     Full Idea: We significantly overestimate the role of character traits in explaining and predicting people's action: the so-called Fundamental Attribution error.
     From: Peter Goldie (The Emotions [2000], 6 'Traits')
     A reaction: I think this point is incredibly important in daily life. 'When someone shows you who they are, believe them!' is a good thought. But we must distinguish the deeply revealing moment from the transient superficial one.
Psychologists suggest we are muddled about traits, and maybe they should be abandoned [Goldie]
     Full Idea: Empirical psychologists have suggested that our practice of trait ascription is systematically prone to error. Some philosophers have concluded that the whole business of trait ascription, and of virtue ethics, should be abandoned.
     From: Peter Goldie (The Emotions [2000], 6 'Traits')
     A reaction: [He cites Ross and Nisbet, and Gilbert Harman as a sceptic] I suspect the problem is that character traits are not precise enough for scientific assessment. How else are we going to describe a person? What else can we say at funerals?
Character traits are both possession of and lack of dispositions [Goldie]
     Full Idea: Most traits are dispositions of a relatively stable sort, but traits need not be dispositions. A trait can be a lack of disposition.
     From: Peter Goldie (The Emotions [2000], 6 'Traits')
     A reaction: Presumably only the lack relatively normal dispositions will count as traits.