essay on importance of good character

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Character — The Importance of Good Character

The Importance of Good Character

• Categories: Character Social Commentary

About this sample

Words: 465 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 465 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Personal relationships, professional success, personal growth.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1.5 pages / 755 words

2.5 pages / 1235 words

2.5 pages / 1190 words

1.5 pages / 801 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Character

Charles Dickens' beloved novella, "A Christmas Carol," is a story of transformation and redemption, centered around the character of Ebenezer Scrooge. However, one character who stands out as a beacon of joy and generosity is [...]

William Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's greatest dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the 'Bard of Avon' [...]

A Christmas Carol is an allegory, written in 1843 by Charles Dickens, is one of the most compelling Christmas themed books known today. It was written during the industrial revolution in England. It was a dirty era and the [...]

Charles Dickens' novella, "A Christmas Carol," is a timeless tale of redemption and transformation. At its heart is the character of Ebenezer Scrooge, a miserly and cold-hearted man who undergoes a profound change over the [...]

While certain of William Shakespeare’s plays have so ingrained themselves into popular culture as to be ubiquitous, others are rarely performed or read and are, in fact, largely ignored. Shakespeare’s Othello, one of the [...]

The literature of the American Renaissance is rich in symbolism, and in no author's work is this more evident than in that of Nathaniel Hawthorne. Perhaps the most popular of his works, The Scarlet Letter has long been [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Importance of Character

A man’s character is what he really is. It is his real moral condition. It has been defined as ‘the distinctive mark of an individual’ . It depends partly upon inborn qualities and partly on training in youth and the circumstances in which a person has been brought up.

It can be cultivated by forming good habits in childhood. “Sow an act and you reap a habit. Sow a habit and you reap a character” . If we sow good habits, we build up a good character.

If we allow bad habits to develop in us, our character becomes bad. It is therefore of great importance that children should be presented with the best models for imitation. Ideals of courage, truth, simplicity, honesty, and purity should be constantly placed before them to follow and live up to them.

We form good or bad habits not only in childhood but later on too. We all grow a little every day, either better or worse. It is, therefore, needs food that we watch ourselves day by day.

What goes to make up a good character? There are many qualities that go to make up the character. First comes truth. Lorde Averbury says, “But there is one quality it is essential without which a man is not a man without which no really great work was ever achieved-that is truth in the inward parts.”

Next comes justice. A man of good character should love to be out even-handed justice to all. But justice should be tempered with mercy. If it is our duty, to be frank, we ought to be sweet and courteous. Sincerity, honesty, generosity, and purity in speech thought and action- such virtues entitle a person to be called a man of good character.

The character is a very important factor in man’s life. Good character is more important than health wealth or happiness. “When the character, is lost everything is lost”  is hundred per cent true. “Leaving aside the moral good that it does, as a mere question of getting on in the world, the character will do more for a man then cleverness.”

We ought to be however slow to judge others for none of us is wholly good wholly bad.

Related Posts:

• Goblin Market Poem by Christina Rossetti Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English
• Sweeney Among the Nightingales by T. S. Eliot Poem Summary Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English for Students
• A Grammarian's Funeral by Robert Browning Summary
• Random University Name Generator
• Random Compound Word Generator
• Mirza Ghalib Shayari on God

Essays About Character: Top 5 Examples and 9 Prompts

If you’re writing an essay about character, below are helpful examples of essays about character with prompts to inspire you further.

When we say that a person has character, we usually refer to one’s positive qualities such as moral fiber, spiritual backbone, social attitudes, mental strength, and beliefs. But not to be mistaken with mere personality, character goes beyond the sum of all good traits. Instead, it demonstrates and applies these qualities in interacting with people, acting on responsibilities, and responding to challenges. 

Character, hence, cannot be evaluated by a single action or event. Instead, it manifests in a pattern and through consistency.

Read on to find essays and prompts to help you create an essay with rich insights. 

1. How 5 CEOs Hire For Character by Chris Fields

2. the character of leadership by brian k. cooper et. al, 3. when proof of good moral character helps an immigration application—or doesn’t by ilona bray, j.d., 4. what are the 24 character strengths by sherri gordon, 5. the five character traits the best investors share by richard thalheimer , 9 writing prompts for essays about character, 1. what are your character strengths, 2. the importance of character, 3. how household chores develop a child’s character, 4. how challenges shape your character, 5. character education in schools, 6. character analysis, 7. character vs. personality , 8. why psychologists study character, 9. choosing people for your character reference  .

“You have to be a good person with a good heart. Of course, you have to be qualified, educated and skilled, that goes without saying – or it should – but your next candidate can’t be a bad person because CEOs are looking for character.”

The essay compiles insights from famous billionaire CEOs who underscore the importance of recruiting people with good character. It shows the upward trend among companies seeking qualifications beyond education and professional experience and looking more into the heart of people. You might also be interested in these essays about courage .

“…[L]eadership that achieves results goes beyond how to be, and becomes how to do; this type of leadership is all about character. So in other words, in order to get things done personally and organizationally, one first needs to get in touch with his or her character.”

Character in leadership could translate to benefits beyond the organization, society, or the world. The essay is based on a study of the three underlying dimensions of leadership character: universalism, transformation, and benevolence. 

“Demonstrating good moral character is an extremely important part of many immigration cases, but it is not required in all of them. In fact, providing proof of your accomplishments to the court could hurt your immigration case in some instances.”

Showing good moral character is a common requirement for immigrants seeking to be naturalized citizens in a different country. This article gets into the nitty gritty on how one can best prove good moral character when facing immigration officers.

“Knowing a person’s character strengths provides a lens through which psychologists, educators, and even parents can see not only what makes a person unique, but also understand how to help that person build on those strengths to improve situations or outcomes.”

The concept of character strengths aims to help people focus on their strengths to lead healthy and happy life. Understanding character strengths meant being more equipped to use these strengths to one’s advantage, whether toward academic access or overcoming adversities.

“… [Y]ou have to be able to pick the right stocks. That’s where talent, intellect, knowledge and common sense come in. Of course, if you can’t control your emotions, and you get fearful and sell every time the market drops, all that talent, knowledge, intellect and common sense go out the window.”

Having an eye for the right stocks requires developing five character traits: talent, intellect, knowledge, common sense, and a bias to action. All these could be honed by sharpening one’s knowledge of the current news and financial trends. Developing character as a stock investor also requires a daily routine that allows one to exercise analytical skills.

Check out these great prompts about character:

What are the positive character traits you think you have that many people also see in you? List down these strengths and dive deep into each one. To start, you may look into the 24 strengths highlighted in one of the essay examples. Then, identify which ones best suit you. Finally, elaborate on how you or the people around you have benefitted from each.

In a world where many are motivated by fame and fortune, how can you convince people that being kind, honest, and courageous trump all life’s material, fleeting desires? Turn this essay into an opportunity to call more people to build good character and keep out of bad habits and actions. 

Tasking children doing household chores can offer benefits beyond enjoying a sparkly clean home. In the long-term, it builds children’s character that can help them lead healthy and happy life. For this prompt, lay down the top benefits children will gain from performing their chores and responsibilities in the household.

Our best selves reveal themselves in the darkest times. You can easily say that obstacles are the actual test of our character. So, first, narrate a challenging experience you had in your life. Then, describe how you turned this bad period around to your advantage to strengthen your mind, character, and resilience. 

Schools play a vital role in training children to have a strong-minded character and contribute to the good of society. As such, schools integrate character education into their curriculum and structure. In your essay, narrate how much your school values character building. Elaborate on how it teaches bad actions, such as bullying or cheating, and good virtues, such as respecting others’ culture, traditions, and rights. 

Pick a character you adore, whether from a novel or a book. Then, write an analysis of their traits and how these fit into their assigned role in the story. Of course, as in every character analysis, narrate their character transformation. So you have to identify key turning points and realizations that prompted the changes in their character, role, values, and beliefs. 

Both your character and personality make you a unique individual. But they have different definitions and uses that make them independent of each other. In your essay, identify these differences and answer which has the most significant impact on your life and which one you should focus on. 

Psychologists study characters to know how and why they change over time. This helps them enhance their understanding of human motivation and behavior. In your essay, answer to a greater extent how studying character drive more people to thrive in school, work, or home. Then, compile recent studies on what has been discovered about developing character and its influences on our daily lives.

A good character reference can help you secure a job you’re aiming for. So first, identify the top qualities employers look for among job seekers. Then, help the reader choose the best people for their character reference. For students, for example, you may recommend they choose their former professors who can vouch for their excellent work at school. 

To make sure your readers are hooked from beginning to end, check out our essay writing tips ! If you’re thinking about changing your essay topic, browse through our general resource of essay writing topics .

Yna Lim is a communications specialist currently focused on policy advocacy. In her eight years of writing, she has been exposed to a variety of topics, including cryptocurrency, web hosting, agriculture, marketing, intellectual property, data privacy and international trade. A former journalist in one of the top business papers in the Philippines, Yna is currently pursuing her master's degree in economics and business.

View all posts

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Three Things That Influence Our Character

My regrettable “mean girl” moment happened when I was in seventh grade.

I was living in a new town and struggling to fit in. As Halloween approached, I felt hopeful when a shy yet kind girl asked me if I would trick-or-treat with her. I jumped at the invitation, until another more “popular” girl invited me to walk around with her group. I made the selfish and unkind decision to tell the first girl that my parents said I needed to stay home and pass out candy.

I remember that gnawing feeling of shame that began to form in my gut as I delivered this dishonest excuse. That little voice of conscience was quickly stifled by an internal dialogue of justification and a false sense of security as I began to prepare my costume and plans for the evening.

While we were trick-or-treating, the “cool” girls were less than kind to me, but I convinced myself I had made the right decision. Then, I experienced a moment of pure embarrassment and shame when I found myself face to face with the sweet girl I had lied to. I’ll always remember the look of hurt and disgust on her face when she saw me with another group of girls.

I never took direct responsibility for my dishonest behavior. In the years that followed, we didn’t interact at school. We just ignored each other and every time I saw her, I heard a little voice that reminded me what an awful person I was. I also was never welcomed into the group of girls that I so desperately wanted to accept me. In fact, I became their target for aggressive behavior for the next few years.

Later, in my late 30s, I formed an interest in character education when I found myself at a personal and professional crossroads. With the guidance of a mentor, I began to consider the trajectory of my own character development and how relationships with family, friends, and educators, as well as experiences, such as my Halloween debacle, had affected my values, beliefs, and decisions. This exploration uncovered a new sense of purpose that eventually led me to the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University (ASU).

We began asking big questions around the type of impact we might have on educators, learners, families, and society if we were to integrate a focus on character development and decision making in the systems of teacher and leader preparation. Could cultivating a capacity for these dispositions in educators contribute to individual, systemic, and societal flourishing?

I now realize that it could have made a difference for me. Looking back on that Halloween through the lens of my research and experience, I would like to tell my 12-year-old self that the decisions I make can have long-term effects on others. I’d share that I’ve learned that character assets such as honesty and integrity are more desirable qualities than prestige and power, and that the way I show up for other people is more important than what others can do for me.

These choices might have led to stronger connections and authentic friendships instead of hurt feelings, negative self-perception, and relational aggression. While I cannot change the past, I can learn about character traits such as honesty, compassion, humility, and integrity through reflection on my experiences, engaging with others who demonstrate these traits, and being intentional about how I nurture these qualities in myself to ensure that I respond differently when faced with future decisions and actions.

My colleagues and I have come to believe that character is something that can be developed in future educators and in educational contexts. We needed to begin with collaboratively creating a shared language and understanding of character and character development, and looking at how it relates to decision making and systems change in education. We landed at a framework that we call Principled Innovation .

How character forms

Character development is complex. It’s an evolutionary journey of becoming that begins in our youngest years and evolves as we cultivate our values and beliefs through relationships, lived experiences, and our engagement in various systems. The places where we exist and the people who exist alongside us throughout our lives impact who we are and what we become.

Our character will form without a map or a guidebook, and typically without our knowledge until we are faced with a situation, dilemma, or adversity that requires our intentional deliberation of thought and action. These experiences can be a catalyst to positive growth, and if approached with a sense of practical wisdom , might also result in purposeful action that leads to both individual and collective flourishing.

Character development is fluid and it continues throughout a person’s lifetime. Individuals have the capacity to learn, regress, change, and develop new aspects of their character, even into adulthood, as they engage in experiences, relationships, contexts, and exemplars. When approached with intention, we can become self-aware enough to guide our development of character through reflective practices, or affect the development of others through intentional strategies designed to cultivate virtue .

The Principled Innovation framework defines character for our context as a large public college of education. It recognizes the links between our own individual character and the impact we might have on individuals, organizations, and systems. The framework and the accompanying tools and resources provide concrete guidance and practices designed to both develop and demonstrate character through the process of innovation.

The Principled Innovation approach, language, and resources have been integrated into culture, curriculum, and practice at Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College. We started with faculty and staff development, as we found it to be imperative to focus on our own understanding and practice of Principled Innovation if we were to model and teach it through pedagogy and curriculum.

Three paths to character

In the six years we have been engaging in this work with Principled Innovation, we have found three big takeaways that help us to be intentional about how we are both developing and demonstrating character for our future educators.

1. Character is personal. Individual character development will happen whether or not we are intentional about how it occurs. As humans develop , their cognitive and emotional capacities expand. They develop reasoning skills, problem-solving abilities, self-awareness, and emotional regulation. These developments play a significant role in shaping character and influencing moral reasoning , decision making, and how individuals perceive and interact with the world.

Personal experiences, including successes, failures, challenges, and significant life events , contribute to character development. These experiences provide opportunities for individuals to develop character assets such as honesty, humility, civility, and resilience.

The key to intentionality is cultivating a willingness to grow and develop as a human , which includes being honest with ourselves and engaging the humility to be open-minded to new perspectives. This takes a tremendous amount of self-awareness that can occur through reflection on our own decisions and actions and the results of both. Engaging in self-reflection and introspection allows us to evaluate our thoughts, actions, values , and beliefs. By examining individual beliefs and behaviors, we can consciously work on personal growth , self-improvement, and the development of our character .

Clearly acknowledging and understanding your core values is one place to begin the process. Habituating reflective practices such as meditation, journaling, and reflective questioning can help you become more self-aware and intentional about cultivating the character assets and dispositions that align with and demonstrate your core values.

One example of how we’ve supported our faculty and staff to cultivate these practices is through our Building a Foundation for Principled Innovation course , which is designed to explore moral , civic , intellectual , and performance character assets and to engage in reflective practices to apply these character assets in the context of decision making.

Faculty and staff have engaged with the content both individually and collectively in communities of practice. We have also developed a card deck of generative and reflective questions that are designed to engage these character assets as we make decisions in various contexts. Every staff and faculty member have received these cards with ideas on how to use them as a reflection tool, both individually and collectively.

Courage in Education

A new online course to help educators cultivate courage in schools and classrooms.

2. Character is contextual. Environmental factors, including family, culture, and socioeconomic background, significantly shape character development. Early experiences, such as attachment to caregivers, parenting styles, and exposure to different social and cultural norms, can have long-lasting effects on both personality and character.

The contextual influence on character does not end with childhood. Our experiences in the environments in which we live and work throughout our lives will have an impact on our character development and the types of decisions we make in various contexts. While you might be more transparent or honest in a situation that involves secure relationships with family and friends, other virtues such as discernment might outweigh honesty in a situation in a professional setting where you feel less secure or unsupported by the conditions created by leadership and colleagues within an organization.

With this in mind, we carefully examined the culture of our college and identified guiding principles that we were striving toward as an organization. We embraced Principled Innovation as a core value that symbolized an organizational commitment to the development of character. Using Principled Innovation as our approach to systems change has helped us to shape the types of conditions and experiences we provide for our faculty, staff, and students that nurture individual and organizational character.

That’s illustrated through changes to structures and systems within the organization, such as a move toward collaborative and team-based teaching, engagement in communities of practice, demonstrations of Principled Innovation by leadership through communications and actions, and changes to policies and practices that support the development of character. 

Through those innovations, we’ve created conditions within our context that allow space for the vulnerability and psychological safety that is necessary for individuals to take risks, fail forward, and lean into the experiences and practices that contribute to the cultivation of practical wisdom and continued growth.

3. Character is relational. Interactions with family members, peers, and broader social networks strongly influence character development. Through social interactions, individuals learn social norms, develop empathy and communication skills, and acquire values and beliefs. Positive and supportive relationships can foster healthy character development, while unhealthy relationships may hinder it. It’s essential to have exemplars in our lives who model the individual practices that contribute to the development of character and who also demonstrate the type of honesty and humility that authentic self-reflection requires.

At a college of education, where we’re striving to prepare educators and leaders who engage character in their decision making, we also need to ensure we are creating the conditions that nurture the authentic relationships that support intentional character development. Creating spaces where we feel we have the permission to be human and bring our whole selves into our environments supports the development of character relationships.

We’ve found that marrying the practices of Principled Innovation with the structure of a community of practice provides the kinds of spaces where intentional connections through a shared purpose can support the development of authentic relationships. We’ve also found small and intentional changes—such as creating space at the beginning of meetings for people to share what’s on their hearts and minds, incorporating Principled Innovation reflective questions into coaching and performance development, and planning activities during the work day where faculty and staff can gather, be creative, and have fun—has helped us to build connection and compassion in an environment where we have often felt humanity and personal lives needed to be left at institution’s door.

Like character development itself, our efforts at ASU are a continual process of becoming. We are still in the nascent stages of learning how our focus on character development in teacher and leader preparation will impact long-term outcomes for individuals, organizations, and systems in education.

Our early observations have been positive to the extent that ASU leadership has identified Practice Principled Innovation as a design aspiration that prompts our entire university community to place character and values at the center of decisions and actions. I have hope for the future of humanity when considering the impact this commitment from a university of ASU’s size and scale could have on the way we innovate and advance emerging technologies, as well as the political and societal climate of our country, and how we communicate and interact as a pluralistic and global community.

It’s idealistic to believe that all individuals will embrace the practice of Principled Innovation and apply it to their decision making, but it’s a lovely thought to consider how doing so in our educational contexts might lead to equitable systems, individual and collective well-being, and positive change for humanity. At the very least, it might encourage the next generation to pause when making even the smallest decisions and consider how that action might affect the well-being of others.

About the Author

Cristy guleserian.

Cristy Guleserian, M.A. , is the executive director of principled innovation at Arizona State University, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College.

You May Also Enjoy

How West Point Is Expanding Character Education

Four Character Strengths That Can Help Kids Learn

Four Ways Teachers Can Help Students Develop a Conscience

How to Help Your Students Develop Positive Habits

How to Help Students Be the Best Version of Themselves

Is Character the Key to Success?

What Does It Take to Have Good Character?

Getting clearer on what being a good person requires..

Posted January 28, 2019 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

I am a philosopher who has worked on the topic of character for over ten years. I have found that unless we clarify what we are talking about, we run the risk of inviting confusion and talking at cross-purposes. For instance, I have had people think that all I do is study characters in novels and plays!

Character traits lead us to think, feel, and act in certain ways. As an example, take someone who is cold-hearted. When he sees children or animals suffering, he has feelings of indifference. He might think that they deserve what they are getting, or that there is nothing he can do for them, or that he has more important things to worry about. So he proceeds to ignore their situation. Not just one time, either. Day after day, and in all kinds of places like the subway, the park, the sidewalk, the beach, and so forth. His cold-heartedness is a part of his character that leads him to think, feel, and act in these ways.

There are two main kinds of character traits—the ones that have to do with being a morally good or bad person, and the ones that do not. Clearly honesty contributes to being a good person, and dishonesty contributes to being a bad person. But consider creativity . By itself it could be used in either a good or bad way. Someone may creatively come up with new solutions to problems of famine or opioid addiction . Or someone might creatively come up with new ways to torture innocent people or develop weapons of mass destruction.

I spend most of my time working on the morally relevant traits. They come in two varieties—the moral virtues and the moral vices. Here are examples of each:

Moral Virtues : Honesty, compassion, justice, gratitude , and forgiveness .

Moral Vices : Dishonesty, cold-heartedness, injustice, ungratefulness, and resentfulness.

The moral virtues are excellences that we should strive to cultivate. The moral vices are the very opposite. So what does it take to be a virtuous person who has these moral virtues? And what signs can we look for when trying to find people who have them? Rather than give an abstract answer, let me use an imaginary example involving Samantha and the virtue of honesty.

Samantha works in a high-level position, which gives her access to the company’s finances and entrusts her with its tax reporting to the federal government. Now suppose we only know one thing more about Samantha. As she was leaving the office last night, she had a chance to take home some office supplies for personal use, but she did not. Is that enough for us to conclude that she is an honest person?

Clearly not. For we do not know whether she is taking home supplies on plenty of other nights. An honest person exhibits honesty stably over time.

So let’s change the example. Suppose she never takes home any office supplies, even when she could really use them at home. Does that do the trick?

Again, clearly not. For we do not know whether she is dishonest in other areas of her work life. She might, for instance, cheat on the company’s tax reporting to the government, or engage in insider trading. An honest person exhibits honesty across the different situations where honesty is called for.

So let’s change the example again. Now we can suppose that Samantha never steals supplies from the company, never fudges the company’s tax reporting, never pilfers any of its money, never lies to co-workers in harmful ways, and so on. How does that sound?

Still not good enough. A virtue like honesty is not relegated just to one’s work life. It is supposed to extend to all areas of one’s life – home, work, school, recreation, and all the rest. It even applies to being honest with oneself and avoiding self-deception .

Again we can change the example, and add that Samantha rarely cheats and lies in morally problematic ways throughout the entire course of her life. Surely we are done, right? Now we have an honest person.

Sadly, the answer is not necessarily. At this point, motivation enters the picture. Why is Samantha acting this way? If it is because she is afraid of what might happen to her if she is caught cheating or lying, then that is not a virtuous motive. Same thing if her main motivation has to do with making a good impression on others, trying to get ahead, or even trying to earn rewards in the afterlife. These are all motives that are egoistic or entirely self-focused. They do not count as virtuous motives, and the moral virtues require virtuous motives.

What would be a better motive? Well, if she chooses not to lie to her friend because she cares about her friend, that is virtuous. And if she decides not to steal from the company because she thinks that stealing is wrong, that is virtuous. And if she judges that it is best to not deceive her co-worker because she values the truth, that is virtuous. What these all have in common is that they are not focused on what would benefit her.

I have gone on about this example because it illustrates some of the complexity involved in being an honest person. Plus, the lessons learned about honesty can apply to the other moral virtues as well. I sum these lessons up this way:

Central Features of a Virtue [1]

• Leads to good actions that are appropriate to the particular situation.
• Leads to good actions throughout the various kinds of situations that are related to the particular virtue.
• Leads to actions that are done for the appropriate reasons or motives.
• Leads to a pattern of motivation and action that is stable and reliable over time.

Here is another lesson from this discussion. Being a good (i.e., virtuous) person is hard. We should not assume that most people have met these requirements. Indeed, we should probably assume at the outset that most people have not.

Fortunately, character can change. Who we are morally speaking is not set in stone. Progress is typically slow and gradual, but it is still progress. And while perfect virtue may be unattainable for us mere mortals, virtue comes in degrees and we can strive to get better and better.

It is the task of a lifetime, but there are few which are more worthy of our time and effort.

This post is adapted with permission from michaelhyatt.com.

[1] Reprinted with permission of Oxford University Press from Christian Miller, The Character Gap: How Good Are We? New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Christian Miller, Ph.D. , is a professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Student Essays

Essay on Character | Meaning, Purpose & Importance of Good Character

Character can be defined as a set of moral principles.  It is also defined as the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual. Character is what you know about somebody, either through experience of dealing with them or by what you have learned about them.

Essay on Character | Meaning & Essentials of Good Character in Life 

Character is the set of attributes that defines a person’s moral and ethical integrity. It reflects a person’s attitude towards others and his or her own belief system. It is a collective term for the distinguishing mental qualities of an individual.

Factors of a Good Character

The major traits of good character are honesty, trustworthiness, integrity, kindness, morality. A person with good character is honest and truthful not only about important matters but also little things. They are trustworthy because they don’t lie, cheat or steal; they also fulfill their promises and commitments. They are truthful in communication and feedback.

>>>>>>> Related Post:    Essay on Youth & Age For Students

Importance of a Sound Character

Having good character is important because it helps develop the inner peace in a person. It also allows people to trust you and establish healthy relationships. It also allows you to focus and prioritize in life.

Character is about being honest, truthful and kind. People with good character help others without expecting anything in return. They are supportive of one another.

People who have good character are peaceful, loving, supportive, helpful to others without expecting anything in return. They have self-control and do not give in to temptations.

Whereas, on the other hand a person with a bad character is not honest and truthful about important matters and small things. They always lie, cheat or steal from others. A person with a bad character also fails to fulfill promises and commitments. They are not truthful in communication and feedback.

Benefits of Good Characters

it’s about being a good person at heart. It’s knowing the difference between right from wrong and choosing to do the right thing. Following are the benefits of good character in life

• Good character helps you gain respect from other people
• People will cooperate with you and work as a team to achieve common goals
• People are more likely to trust you
• You have the power of influencing others
• It allows you to develop healthy relationships
• It allows you to focus and prioritize in life
• You will have a positive energy to achieve success in any field of life
• It brings peace to your mind and body
• You will be able to deal with stress
• You become the person who is loved and respected by all

Developing Good Character in Life

It is important for parents to teach their child about good character. They should set examples for kids by practicing what they preach. You can also encourage your child’s positive traits and discourage negative traits.

Parents should also encourage their children to participate in community service activities that develop good character. The more your child will be actively involved in community service, the more your child will learn to be a good and responsible person.

>>>>>> Related Post:     Essay on Empathy & Compassion For Students

It is important to have good character in order to be a great and successful person. Without having good character, you will not be able to gain the trust and respect of people around you. It is important to be truthful about everything including little things, as it reflects your honesty and integrity towards others

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Importance of Good Character

• First Online: 01 January 2013

Cite this chapter

• Carmel Proctor 3  

3228 Accesses

2 Citations

This chapter discusses and reviews the literature on character strengths and character strengths interventions in education. Following a brief introduction into moral character, a positive psychological classification and measurement system of character strengths is presented. Empirical research findings exploring the relationship between character strengths and other well-being variables are subsequently reviewed. Finally, examples of curriculum based positive psychological interventions applying character strengths in education are presented and summary of overall findings discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, E. (2005). Strengths-based educating: The concrete way to bring out the best in students – And yourself. The confessions of an educator who got it right – Finally! The quest for strengths. Educational Horizons, 83 (3), 180–189.

Aristotle. (c. 330 BCE/1925). The Nicomachean ethics (trans: Ross, D.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Austin, D. B. (2006). Building on a foundation of strengths. Educational Horizons, 84 (3), 176–182.

Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., Scales, P. C., & Blyth, D. A. (2012). Beyond the “village” rhetoric: Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 16 (1), 3–23.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bromley, E., Johnson, J. G., & Cohen, P. (2006). Personality strengths in adolescence and decreased risk of developing mental health problems in early adulthood. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 47 , 315–324.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Clifton, D. O., & Anderson, E. (2002). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your strengths, in academics, career, and beyond . Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.

Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591 , 13–24.

Fox Eades, J. M. (2008). Celebrating strengths: Building strengths-based school . Coventry: CAPP Press.

Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 46 (2), 213–233.

Gillham, J., Adams-Deutsch, Z., Werner, J., Reivich, K., Coulter-Heindl, V., Linkins, M., et al. (2011). Character strengths predict subjective well-being during adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (1), 31–44.

Govindji, R., & Linley, P. A. (2008, August). An evaluation of celebrating strengths . Prepared for North Lincolnshire Local Education Authority. Coventry: CAPP, Warwick University.

Henderson, G. (2005). StrengthsQuest in application: The experience of four educators. The power of teaching students using strengths. The quest for strengths. Educational Horizons, 83 (3), 202–210.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol. II). San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Kohn, A. (1997). The trouble with character education. In A. Molnar (Ed.), The construction of children’s character: 96th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 154–162). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.

Park, N. (2004). Character strengths and positive youth development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591 , 40–54.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006a). Character strengths and happiness among young children: Content analysis of parental descriptions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7 (3), 323–341.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006b). Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents: The development and validation of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29 (6), 891–909.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2008). The cultivation of character strengths. In M. Ferrari & G. Poworowski (Eds.), Teaching for wisdom (pp. 57–75). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Strengths of character in schools. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 65–76). New York: Routledge.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23 (5), 603–619.

Park, N., Peterson, C., Moore, K. A., & Lippman, L. H. (2005). The values in action inventory of character strengths for youth. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish: Conceptualization and measuring indicators of positive development (The Search Institute series on developmentally attentive community and society, pp. 13–23). New York: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology . New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2004). Classification and measurement of character strengths: Implications for practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 433–446). Hoboken: Wiley.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Proctor, C., & Fox Eades, J. (2009). Strengths Gym: Teacher’s manual . St. Peter Port, Guernsey: Positive Psychology Research Centre.

Proctor, C., Tsukayama, E., Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Fox Eades, J. M., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths Gym: The impact of a character strengths-based intervention on the life satisfaction and well-being of adolescents. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (5), 377–388.

Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). Contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4 (1), 27–46.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new possible psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment . New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 5–14.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60 (5), 410–421.

Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35 (3), 293–311.

Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65 (5), 467–487.

Steen, T. A., Kachorek, L. V., & Peterson, C. (2003). Character strengths among youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32 (1), 5–16.

Steger, M. F., Hicks, B. M., Kashdan, T. B., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. J. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on the positive traits of the values in action classification, and biometric covariance with normal personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 41 (3), 524–539.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Positive Psychology Research Centre, 544, St. Peter Port, GY1 6HL, Guernsey, UK

Carmel Proctor

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmel Proctor .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Positive Psycology Research Centre, St. Peter Port, Guernsey, Channel Islands, GY1 6HL, United Kingdom

Centre of Applied Positive Psychology, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry, United Kingdom

P. Alex Linley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Proctor, C. (2013). The Importance of Good Character. In: Proctor, C., Linley, P. (eds) Research, Applications, and Interventions for Children and Adolescents. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6398-2_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6398-2_2

Published : 05 April 2013

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-6397-5

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-6398-2

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Good Character and How It Is Formed Essay

It may be very difficult to determine what is right or wrong globally owing to the fact that this normally differs from own region to another depending on the concerned community’s culture and beliefs. For instance in the Islamic communities, it is normally wrong to wear any kind of attire that exposes the body, but wearing long robes and the veils which are considered as the proper clothing for the female is declared good character.

Character can be defined in simple terms as the behavior of a person that determines the kind of person an individual is. It normally indicates whether a person will efficiently achieve the goals set for him or her, be straight in dealing with others and whether the person will obey the rules and laws set by the organization, group or even community that he or she belongs. Character is normally developed as a result of learning a behavior from parents, teachers or peers. It normally relate to one’s attitudes and values.

Even though character is learned from childhood, it may vary or change as the individual undergoes different situations and experiences. For instance, a company manager may be very demanding and strict to his or her employees but liberal and understanding to his or her children. Character is normally taught from childhood and sometimes, it may be quite difficult to change the already learned values and attitudes. Individual may be forced to transform his or her character if it does not favor him or her. Take for instance a person who may have been brought up in a liberal kind of family set up in which him or her was allowed to make their own decisions; he/she may find it quite difficult working in an environment where he or she has to strictly follow orders. He or she may therefore be forced to change his or her character in order to be able to survive in this kind of environment.

Good character can be determined by assessing given traits in an individual. The presence of these traits makes a person to be considered as having good character. These traits include trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship among others. Trustworthiness implies being honest, reliable and loyal. An individual who cheats steals and is not loyal is considered to lack trustworthiness and therefore lacks a good character.

Respect implies being considerate or conscious of other peoples feelings when handling them. It involves being tolerant to other people’s indifferences towards you. People normally tend to associate respect to authority; the belief that respect should always come from the juniors to the seniors. Respect is two way and should always be reciprocated by the individuals involved. If this is not done, then the junior will simply develop a sense of fear towards the authority and it will no longer be respect. A person who shows respect to others is therefore considered to have good character.

Being responsible is being able to do what one is mandated to do. It also entails being ready to take accountability for ones actions or being ready to face the consequences of one’s decisions. Responsibility is a value that is never easy to achieve since it calls for a high level of self discipline and control. For instance a speeding motorist who happens to accidentally run over a pedestrian and decides to take the injured person to the hospital for medical checkup is considered responsible. He therefore has good character.

Fairness is about playing by the rules of agreement and not taking advantage of others. The antonym of fairness is unfairness which implies taking advantage of others especially the weaker ones. In organizations and groups there are some individuals especially those in the senior positions who capitalize on their junior’s ignorance or weakness and deprive them of their rights in these organizations. This is not fair; it is a bad character. Those who listen to others and respect the agreements have good character.

Human beings are conscious beings, and virtues such as kindness, compassion, a sense of gratitude and the ability to forgive are considered to be very important in human life. A show of compassion or kindness to a person in need is normally referred to as good character. The ability to show gratitude for the assistance given or to be able to forgive another person’s wrongdoing towards us is a show of good character.

Citizenship refers to the rights, privileges and duties of every member of a nation. A good citizen is one who pays his or her taxes, obeys the laws, votes, and endeavors to protect the environment. In order to be a good citizen one needs to have good values and attitudes which will create good character in an individual in order to make them good citizens.

Good character therefore refers to those values and attitudes that will enable us to be fair in our dealings with other people without taking advantage of their weaknesses or ignorance; being caring and showing compassion to those in need; being good citizens; taking responsibility of our actions and decisions; being ready to face the consequences of our actions; being honest and loyal; and being sensitive of other people’s feelings when dealing with them. It is important to develop good character since it provides a standard of measure for our behavior and also guides our actions.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 1). Good Character and How It Is Formed. https://ivypanda.com/essays/good-character-and-how-it-is-formed/

"Good Character and How It Is Formed." IvyPanda , 1 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/good-character-and-how-it-is-formed/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Good Character and How It Is Formed'. 1 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Good Character and How It Is Formed." November 1, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/good-character-and-how-it-is-formed/.

1. IvyPanda . "Good Character and How It Is Formed." November 1, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/good-character-and-how-it-is-formed/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Good Character and How It Is Formed." November 1, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/good-character-and-how-it-is-formed/.

• Counseling Process: Trustworthiness and Expertness
• Benjamin Franklin: Saying About Health and Its Trustworthiness
• Critical Response "On Compassion"
• Self-Recognition Through Film and Literature
• Cultural Influence on Developmental Psychopathology
• Humanistic and Existential Personality Theories Matrix
• Psychotherapy and Counselling
• Employee Motivation Importance Review

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Got milk? Does it give you problems?

Cancer risk, wine preference, and your genes

Excited about new diet drug? This procedure seems better choice.

Being good for goodness’ sake — and your own.

Harvard Correspondent

Research finds health benefits in high moral character

Being good is good for you, say the authors of research that explored the role of character in physical and mental health. In a study of more than 1,200 U.S. adults, a team of researchers from Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program and the SHINE program at Harvard Chan School found that acting with high moral character is associated with a lower risk of depression — and may have cardiovascular benefits as well. We spoke with Dorota Weziak-Bialowolska , a co-author of the findings, about the results. The interview was edited for clarity and length.

Dorota Weziak-Bialowolska

GAZETTE: What is moral character?

WEZIAK-BIALOWOLSKA: We define it as adherence to high standards of moral behaviors and acting in a way which contributes to the good of oneself and others. So it’s reflected in excellent character, but also in an orientation to promote good and engaging in good deeds, even in difficult or challenging situations.

GAZETTE: How did you measure character?

WEZIAK-BIALOWOLSKA: We asked people to assess themselves in five dimensions: “I always act to promote good in all circumstances, even in difficult and challenging situations”; “I always know what is the right thing to do”; “I always treat everyone with kindness”; “I am always able to give up some happiness now for greater happiness later”; and “I use my strength to help others.”

GAZETTE: Wouldn’t everyone answer these questions to make themselves look good?

More like this

Optimism lengthens life, study finds

Healthy? Maybe. But are you flourishing?

When science meets mindfulness

WEZIAK-BIALOWOLSKA: You’ll notice we didn’t ask directly: “Are you a good person?” The overall well-being assessment consists of 40 items, and we collected this data in two waves, so we were able to account for reporting bias. Especially when you do a longitudinal study, you account for this bias because it’s present always.

GAZETTE: What are the main takeaways from the paper?

WEZIAK-BIALOWOLSKA: For us, the aim was to look for unconventional health resources — positive factors that may be influential for health and well-being — and character strength is one example. What was quite interesting was the association between delayed gratification and health outcomes. We found an association with depression, but also with anxiety and cardiovascular disease. In health studies we know that delayed gratification is good. When you think about health behaviors like smoking or drinking, if you can refrain from them, you can expect that it will be good for you. But we asked about the statement: “I am always able to give up some happiness now for greater happiness later.” There was no direct indication to health. It was about happiness, something abstract, but we found an association with health outcomes.

We were looking for a recommendation for public health policies. The takeaway is that character-related policies or interventions may be relevant for population health. It’s also very likely that they would be received well by the population because they are aligned with what most of us want: to become a better person. It was very reassuring for us that we found these associations, and for me, personally. I thought it’s wonderful that when I am a better human being I can contribute to the better well-being of others, but also, maybe, for myself.

GAZETTE: What’s next?

WEZIAK-BIALOWOLSKA: Both the Human Flourishing Program and SHINE have plans to examine a very particular aspect of moral character, an orientation to promote good in other populations. Our interest in particular is in post-conflict populations. We’ve already collected data on this aspect of moral character and some health outcomes and well-being outcomes in South Africa, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Colombia.

Another project happening right now is the Global Flourishing Study , which is a joint program of the Harvard Human Flourishing Program, Baylor University, the Gallup Organization, and the Center for Open Science. The idea is to examine more than 200,000 individuals from more than 20 countries and to examine more long-term association between different aspects of moral character and health and well-being outcomes. In our study we found associations between moral character and mental health one year after. The Global Flourishing Study will last five years, and we will be able to see if the associations are present even after five years. It’s quite an exciting prospect.

Share this article

You might like.

Biomolecular archaeologist looks at why most of world’s population has trouble digesting beverage that helped shape civilization

Biologist separates reality of science from the claims of profiling firms

Study finds minimally invasive treatment more cost-effective over time, brings greater weight loss

How old is too old to run?

No such thing, specialist says — but when your body is trying to tell you something, listen

How far has COVID set back students?

An economist, a policy expert, and a teacher explain why learning losses are worse than many parents realize

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Moral Character

Questions about moral character have recently come to occupy a central place in philosophical discussion. Part of the explanation for this development can be traced to the publication in 1958 of G. E. M. Anscombe’s seminal article “Modern Moral Philosophy.” In that paper Anscombe argued that Kantianism and utilitarianism, the two major traditions in western moral philosophy, mistakenly placed the foundation for morality in legalistic notions such as duty and obligation. To do ethics properly, Anscombe argued, one must start with what it is for a human being to flourish or live well. That meant returning to some questions that mattered deeply to the ancient Greek moralists. These questions focussed on the nature of “virtue” (or what we might think of as admirable moral character), of how one becomes virtuous (is it taught? does it arise naturally? are we responsible for its development?), and of what relationships and institutions may be necessary to make becoming virtuous possible. Answers to these ancient questions emerge today in various areas of philosophy, including ethics (especially virtue ethics), feminist ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of education, and philosophy of literature. Interest in virtue and character was also indirectly the result of a more practical turn in political philosophy, inspired by the publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice in 1971. Especially in Part III of A Theory of Justice , Rawls provided a picture of how individuals might be brought up in a just state to develop the virtues expected of good citizens. Although his interest was not in moral education per se, his discussion of how individuals acquire a sense of justice and of how they develop what he called self-respect stimulated other philosophers to explore the psychological foundations of virtue and the contributions made by friendship, family, community, and meaningful work to good moral character.

This entry provides a brief historical account of some important developments in philosophical approaches to good moral character. Approximately half the entry is on the Greek moralists Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. Of these, most attention is given to Aristotle’s views, since most other philosophical discussions of character are indebted to his analysis. The latter half of the entry explores how other philosophers have responded to the concerns first raised by the Greeks. Some philosophers, such as Hugo Grotius and Immanuel Kant, represent a “modern” approach to character that subordinates it to other moral notions such as duty and obedience to law. Other philosophers, such as David Hume, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and T. H. Green take an interest in the psychology of moral character that is more reminiscent of the Greeks. Finally, this entry indicates the directions taken by some contemporary philosophers in recent work on or related to moral character.

1. Terminology

2.1 why character matters, 2.2 virtue and happiness, 2.3 some greek disagreements about virtue, 2.4 aristotle (384–322 bce), 2.5 stoic views of character, 3.1 early natural law theorists, 3.4 marx and mill, 3.5 t. h. green.

• 4. Contemporary questions about character

5.1 The challenge posed by situationism

5.2 some replies to situationism, 5.3 some empirical approaches to aristotelian views of character, primary literature, secondary literature, other internet resources, related entries.

The English word “character” is derived from the Greek charaktêr, which was originally used of a mark impressed upon a coin. Later and more generally, “character” came to mean a distinctive mark by which one thing was distinguished from others, and then primarily to mean the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another. In modern usage, this emphasis on distinctiveness or individuality tends to merge “character” with “personality.” We might say, for example, when thinking of a person’s idiosyncratic mannerisms, social gestures, or habits of dress, that “he has personality” or that “he’s quite a character.”

As the Introduction above has suggested, however, the philosophical use of the word “character” has a different linguistic history. At the beginning of Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics , Aristotle tells us that there are two different kinds of human excellences, excellences of thought and excellences of character. His phrase for excellences of character – êthikai aretai – we usually translate as “moral virtue(s)” or “moral excellence(s).” The Greek êthikos (ethical) is the adjective cognate with êthos (character). When we speak of a moral virtue or an excellence of character, the emphasis is not on mere distinctiveness or individuality, but on the combination of qualities that make an individual the sort of ethically admirable person he is.

This entry will discuss “moral character” in the Greek sense of having or lacking moral virtue. If someone lacks virtue, she may have any of several moral vices, or she may be characterized by a condition somewhere in between virtue and vice, such as continence or incontinence.

2. Some ancient Greek views

The views of moral character held by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics are the starting point for most other philosophical discussions of character. Although these ancient moralists differed on some issues about virtue, it makes sense to begin with some points of similarity. These points of similarity will show why the Greek moralists thought it was important to discuss character.

Many of Plato’s dialogues (especially the early or so-called “Socratic” dialogues) examine the nature of virtue and the character of a virtuous person. They often begin by having Socrates ask his interlocutors to explain what a particular virtue is. In reply, the interlocutors usually offer behavioral accounts of the virtues. For example, at the beginning of Plato’s Laches the character Laches suggests that courage consists of standing one’s ground in battle. In the Charmides , Charmides suggests that temperance consists in acting quietly. In the Republic , Cephalus suggests that justice consists in giving back what one has borrowed. In each of these cases, Plato has Socrates reply in the same way. In the Republic Socrates explains that giving back what one has borrowed cannot be what justice is, for there are cases where giving back what one has borrowed would be foolish, and the just person recognizes that it is foolish. If the person from whom you have borrowed a sword goes mad, it would be foolish for you to return the sword, for you are then putting yourself and others in danger. The implication is that the just person can recognize when it is reasonable to return what he has borrowed. Similarly, as Socrates explains in the Laches , standing firm in battle cannot be courage, for sometimes standing firm in battle is simply a foolish endurance that puts oneself and others at needless risk. The courageous person can recognize when it is reasonable to stand his ground in battle and when it isn’t.

The trouble one encounters in trying to give a purely behavioral account of virtue explains why the Greek moralists turn to character to explain what virtue is. It may be true that most of us can recognize that it would be foolish to risk our lives and the lives of others to secure a trivial benefit, and that most of us can see that it is unjust to harm others to secure power and wealth for our own comfort. We don’t have to be virtuous to recognize these things. But the Greek moralists think it takes someone of good moral character to determine with regularity and reliability what actions are appropriate and reasonable in fearful situations and that it takes someone of good moral character to determine with regularity and reliability how and when to secure goods and resources for himself and others. This is why Aristotle states in Nicomachean Ethics II.9 that it is not easy to define in rules which actions deserve moral praise and blame, and that these matters require the judgment of the virtuous person.

Most of the Greek moralists think that, if we are rational, we aim at living well ( eu zên ) or happiness ( eudaimonia ). Living well or happiness is our ultimate end in that a conception of happiness serves to organize our various subordinate ends, by indicating the relative importance of our ends and by indicating how they should fit together into some rational overall scheme. So the Stoics identify happiness with “living coherently” ( homologoumenôs zên ), and Aristotle says that happiness is “perfect” or “complete” ( teleios ) and something distinctively human. When we are living well, our life is worthy of imitation and praise. For, according to the Greek moralists, that we are happy says something about us and about what we have achieved, not simply about the fortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves. So they argue that happiness cannot consist simply in “external goods” or “goods of fortune,” for these goods are external to our own choosing and deciding. Whatever happiness is, it must take account of the fact that a happy life is one lived by rational agents who act and who are not simply victims of their circumstances.

The Greek moralists conclude that a happy life must give a prominent place to the exercise of virtue, for virtuous traits of character are stable and enduring and are not products of fortune, but of learning or cultivation. Moreover, virtuous traits of character are excellences of the human being in that they are the best exercise of reason, which is the activity characteristic of human beings. In this way, the Greek philosophers claim, virtuous activity completes or perfects human life.

Although the Greek philosophers agree that happiness requires virtue and hence that a happy person must have virtuous traits of character such as wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice, they disagree about how to understand these traits. As explained in Section 2.1 above, several of Plato’s dialogues criticize the view that virtues are merely tendencies to act in particular ways. Bravery requires more than standing up against threats to oneself and others. Bravery also requires recognizing when standing up to these threats is reasonable and appropriate, and it requires acting on one’s recognition. This led the Greek moralists to conclude that virtuous traits of character have two aspects: (a) a behavioral aspect – doing particular kinds of action and (b) a psychological aspect – having the right motives, aims, concerns, and perspective. The Greek philosophers disagree mostly about what (b) involves. In particular, they differ about the role played in virtuous traits of character by cognitive states (e.g., knowledge and belief) on the one hand and affective states (e.g., desires, feelings, and emotions) on the other. Socrates and the Stoics argued that only cognitive states were necessary for virtue, whereas Plato and Aristotle argued that both cognitive and affective states were necessary.

Socrates (469–399 BCE)

In Plato’s Protagoras , Socrates seems to identify happiness with pleasure and to explain the various virtues as instrumental means to pleasure. On this view (later revived by Epicurus, 341–271 BCE), having a virtuous character is purely a matter of being knowledgeable of what brings us more pleasure rather than less. In the Protagoras , Socrates recognizes that most people object to this view. The “many” suppose that having a virtuous character requires more than knowledge, because knowledge does not guarantee that one will act on one’s knowledge and do the virtuous action. Someone may be overcome by anger, fear, lust, and other desires, and act against what he believes will bring him more pleasure rather than less. He can, in other words, be incontinent or weak-willed. Socrates replies that such cases should be understood differently. When, for example, a cowardly person flees from battle rather than endanger his life, even though he may seem to be pursuing the more pleasant action, he is really just ignorant of the greater pleasure to be achieved by entering battle and acting bravely. In other words, incontinence is not possible, according to Socrates.

Plato (428–347 BCE)

The “many”’s worry about the inadequacy of knowledge to ensure virtuous action suggests that virtuous character includes not only a cognitive element, but also some affective element. Both Plato and Aristotle argue that virtuous character requires a distinctive combination of cognitive and affective elements. In the Republic , Plato divides the soul into three parts and gives to each a different kind of desire (rational, appetitive, or spirited). As types of non-rational desire, appetitive and spirited desires can conflict with our rational desires about what contributes to our overall good, and they will sometimes move us to act in ways we recognize to be against our greater good. When that happens, we are incontinent. To be virtuous, then, we must both understand what contributes to our overall good and have our spirited and appetitive desires educated properly, so that they agree with the guidance provided by the rational part of the soul. Plato describes the education of the non-rational parts of the soul in Books II and III of the Republic . A potentially virtuous person learns when young to love and take pleasure in virtuous actions, but must wait until late in life to develop the understanding that explains why what he loves is good. Once he has learned what the good is, his informed love of the good explains why he acts as he does and why his actions are virtuous.

Aristotle accepts Plato’s division of the soul into two basic parts (rational and non-rational) and agrees that both parts contribute to virtuous character. Of all the Greek moralists, Aristotle provides the most psychologically insightful account of virtuous character. Because many modern philosophical treatments of character (see Sections 3 and 4 below) are indebted to Aristotle’s analysis, it is best to discuss his position in some detail.

Aristotle’s definition of good moral character

Aristotle defines virtuous character in Nicomachean Ethics II.6:

Excellence [of character], then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom ( phronimos ) would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect. (1106b36–1107a3)

By calling excellence of character a state, Aristotle means that it is neither a feeling nor a capacity nor a mere tendency to behave in specific ways. Rather it is the settled condition we are in when we are well off in relation to feelings and actions. We are well off in relation to our feelings and actions when we are in a mean or intermediate state in regard to them. If, on the other hand, we have a vicious character, we are badly off in relation to feelings and actions, and we fail to hit the mean in regard to them.

So it is not easy to hit the mean. “Anyone can get angry – that is easy – or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right aim, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy.” That is why goodness is praiseworthy ( epaineton ) and fine ( kalon ) ( Nicomachean Ethics 1109a26–30).

Virtue as a mean state

Aristotle emphasizes that the mean state is not an arithmetic mean, but one relative to the situation. The different particular virtues provide illustrations of what Aristotle means. Each virtue is set over or concerned with specific feelings or actions. The virtue of mildness or good temper, for example, is concerned with anger. Aristotle thinks that a mild person ought to be angry about some things (e.g., injustice and other forms of mistreatment) and should be willing to stand up for himself and those he cares about. Not to do so would, in Aristotle’s view, indicate the morally deficient character of the inirascible person. It would also be inappropriate to take offense and get angry if there is nothing worth getting angry about. That response would indicate the morally excessive character of the irascible person. The mild person’s reactions are appropriate to the situation. Sometimes intense anger is appropriate; at other times calm detachment is.

The psychological unity of the virtuous person and the disunity of non-virtuous conditions

That the virtuous person’s emotional responses are appropriate to the situation indicates that her emotional responses are in harmony with her correct reasoning about what to do. Aristotle says that the non-rational part of a virtuous person’s soul “speaks with the same voice” ( homophônei , Nicomachean Ethics 1102b28) as the rational part. That the virtuous person’s soul is unified and not torn by conflict distinguishes the state of being virtuous from various non-virtuous conditions such as continence ( enkrateia ), incontinence ( akrasia ), and vice ( kakia ) in general.

Aristotle seems to think that, at bottom, any non-virtuous person is plagued by inner doubt or conflict, even if on the surface she appears to be as psychologically unified as virtuous people. Although a vicious person may appear to be single-minded about her disdain for justice and her pursuit of material goods and power, she must seek out others’ company to forget or ignore her own actions. Aristotle seems to have this point in mind when he says of vicious people in Nicomachean Ethics IX.4 that they are at odds with themselves and do not love themselves. Virtuous persons, on the other hand, enjoy who they are and take pleasure in acting virtuously.

Like the morally vicious person, the continent and incontinent persons are internally conflicted, but they are more aware of their inner turmoil than the morally vicious person. Continence is essentially a kind of self-mastery: the continent person recognizes what she should do and does it, but to do so she must struggle against the pull of recalcitrant feelings. The incontinent person also in some way knows what she should do, but she fails to do it because of recalcitrant feelings.

Aristotle’s position on incontinence seems to incorporate both Socratic and Platonic elements. Recall that Socrates had explained apparently incontinent behavior as the result of ignorance of what leads to the good. Since, he thought, everyone desires the good and aims at it in his actions, no one would intentionally choose a course of action believed to yield less good overall. Plato, on the other hand, argued that incontinence can occur when a person’s non-rational desires move him to act in ways not endorsed by his rational desire for the greater good. Aristotle seems to agree with Socrates that the cognitive state of the incontinent person is defective at the moment of incontinent behavior, but he also agrees with Plato that a person’s non-rational desires cause the incontinent action. This may be what Aristotle means when he writes that “the position that Socrates sought to establish actually seems to result; for it is not what is thought to be knowledge proper that the passion overcomes … but perceptual knowledge” ( Nicomachean Ethics , 1147b14–17).

Moral education and the human function

Because Aristotle thinks that virtue is a unified, unconflicted state where emotional responses and rational assessments speak with the same voice, he, like Plato, thinks that the education of our emotional responses is crucial for the development of virtuous character. If our emotional responses are educated properly, we will learn to take pleasure or pain in the right things. Like Plato, Aristotle thinks that we can take a person’s pleasures and pains to be a sign of his state of character.

To explain what the virtuous person’s pleasures are like, Aristotle returns to the idea that virtue is an excellent state of the person. Virtue is the state that makes a human being good and makes him perform his function well ( Nicomachean Ethics 1106a15–24). His function (his ergon or characteristic activity) is rational activity, so when we exercise our fully developed rational powers well, when we realize our nature as rational beings, we are good (virtuous) human beings and live well (we are happy) ( Nicomachean Ethics , I.7).

According to Aristotle, human beings can reason in ways that non-human animals cannot. They can deliberate about what to do, about what kind of lives to live, about what sort of persons to be. They can look for reasons to act or live one way rather than another. In other words, they can engage in practical reasoning. They can also think about the nature of the world and why it seems to behave as it does. They can consider scientific and metaphysical truths about the universe. This is to engage in theoretical reasoning (“contemplation” or theôria ). There is no agreement among scholars as to whether, and how, these types of reasoning can be distinguished. (For a discussion of theoretical and practical reason in Aristotle, see the related entry on Aristotle’s ethics .) But as we shall see when we discuss Aristotle’s Politics , we can assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that theoretical and practical rational activity are at least related types of rational activity, in that each involves exercising one’s abilities to think and to know and to consider truths that one has figured out.

How do one realize these powers fully? Not by becoming adept at every kind of activity in which deliberating and judging on the basis of reason is called for. For then one would have to master every kind of cultural, scientific, and philosophical activity. Rather, Aristotle’s idea is that an individual develops these abilities to the extent that he enjoys and values the exercise of his realized rational powers in a wide variety of different and even seemingly unconnected activities. When that happens, his exercise of these abilities is a continuing source of self-esteem and enjoyment. He comes to like his life and himself and is now a genuine self-lover ( Nicomachean Ethics 1168b28–1169a3).

In Nicomachean Ethics ) IX.8, Aristotle clarifies the motives and reasoning of virtuous people by contrasting genuine self-love with a defective type that is reproachable. People with reproachable self-love want most to have the biggest share of money, honors, and bodily pleasures (cf. Nicomachean Ethics I.5). Because one person cannot have a big share without denying these goods to others, these are the goods that are contested and fought over. This competitive approach to these external goods leads to all sorts of morally vicious behavior, for example, overreaching ( pleonexia ), aggression, wasteful luxury, intemperance, boastfulness, and vanity. In contrast to reproachable self-lovers, genuine self-lovers will take pleasure in the right things (they will enjoy the exercise of their deliberative and decision-making powers rather than the accumulation of wealth or power). As a result, they will avoid many of the actions, and will be unattracted to many of the pleasures, of the common vices. Because they have the proper attitude toward external goods, they will be ready to sacrifice such goods if by doing so they achieve what is fine. They recognize that when everyone concentrates on doing what is fine, their actions promote the common good ( Nicomachean Ethics 1169a6). The virtuous person’s reasoning reflects his correct conception of how to live (he has phronêsis or practical wisdom) and his concern for the fine: he sees that his own good is included in the good of the community ( Nicomachean Ethics 1169a3–6).

The need for relationships and community

Because an individual’s good is included in the good of community, the full realization of an individual’s rational powers is not something he can achieve or maintain on his own. It is hard, Aristotle says in Nicomachean Ethics IX.9, for a solitary person to be continuously active, but it is easier with others. To realize our powers fully we need at least a group of companions who share our interests and with whom we can cooperate to achieve our mutually recognized goals. In this kind of cooperative activity, we are parts of a larger enterprise, so that when others act, it is as though we are acting, too. In this way, these activities expand our conception of who “we” are, and they make the use of our powers more continuous and more stable. Examples listed by Aristotle include sailors on a ship, soldiers on an expedition, members of families, business relationships, religious associations, citizens of a political community, and colleagues engaged in contemplative activity. As Aristotle explains in Rhetoric II.4, if we and our cooperative partners do their parts responsibly, each will develop feelings of friendship for the others involved. In this way, successful cooperative activity transforms persons’ desires and motivations. Although we may have initiated activity for self-interested reasons, the psychological result is that we come to like our cooperative partners and to develop a concern for their good for their own sakes. This change, Aristotle indicates, is caused to occur in us. It is not chosen. Once bonds of friendship are formed, it is natural for us to exhibit the social virtues Aristotle describes in Nicomachean Ethics IV.6–8, which include generosity, friendliness, and mildness of temper.

Aristotle thinks that, in addition to friendships, wider social relations are required for the full development of our rational powers. He says in Nicomachean Ethics I.7 that we are by nature political beings, whose capacities are fully realized in a specific kind of political community (a polis or city-state). Aristotle’s ideal political community is led by citizens who recognize the value of living fully active lives and whose aim is to make the best life possible for their fellow citizens, thereby promoting the common good ( Politics 1278b19–26, cf. 1280b8–12). When citizens deliberate and legislate about the community’s educational, office-holding, and economic policies, their goal is to determine and promote the conditions under which citizens can fully develop their deliberative and decision-making powers ( Politics 1332b12–41).

Thus Aristotle recommends in Politics VII-VIII that the city provide a system of public education for all citizens, a recommendation that was radical for his time. He envisions that young people will learn not simply to read and write, but also to appreciate the beauty of the world around them and to gain some understanding of how the universe works. If education is successful, young people will want to use their powers in deciding, judging, and discriminating. They will then be well-positioned to take their place as decision-makers in the citizen assembly and judicial system and, because of sortition and a system of office rotation, as eventual holders of public office. The city’s economic policies support the aim of the political and educational institutions. Because Aristotle sees that citizens need material resources if they are to participate fully in public life, he recommends that the state distribute parcels of land to all. Yet there is no need, in his view, to establish economic equality, as long as existing inequalities are not large enough to promote the formation of elite groups or to provoke justified anger or envy. These various policies – educational, political, economic – make it possible for a sense of justice to pervade the city, as they serve to confirm that all citizens are valued as equal practical deliberators and policy-makers.

Aristotle’s criticisms of deviant political states take a related line: states that encourage the consumption and accumulation of external goods for their own sake, or states that promote warfare and military supremacy as an end in itself, mistake the nature of the best human life. Citizens of such states will grow up to love most something other than the exercise of realized human rational powers, and as a result they will be prone to such traditional vices as injustice, lack of generosity, and intemperance.

That living well requires active political deliberation and policy-making explains why Aristotle excludes natural slaves, women, and manual workers from citizenship, and helps to clarify his view that citizens should be private property-owners. In Aristotle’s view, natural slaves lack the capacity for deliberation and decision-making that is required for living well. Women have a deliberative capacity, but it is not “authoritative.” Manual laborers are occupied with the production of necessities. They have decision-making powers, but their exercise is limited by the laborer’s need to survive, for he must conform to the demands of his working conditions. Moreover, manual work is often dull and repetitive, making little demand on workers’ rational powers. As private property-owners, citizens are not vulnerable to these problems. With private property, an individual has a supply of resources that is under his control; his decision determines what happens to it. Thus he is able to take pleasure from generous action – from helping his friends, guests, and companions.

For more detailed discussion of the relation between Aristotle’s ethical and political views, see Irwin (1985, 1996, 2007), Kraut (2002) and Schofield (2006). On Aristotle’s discussions of friendship, see Cooper (1980).

Plato and Aristotle agree that excellent moral character involves more than a Socratic understanding of the good. They think that virtue requires a harmony between cognitive and affective elements of the person. Aristotle tries to explain what this harmony consists in by exploring the psychological foundations of moral character. He thinks that the virtuous person is characterized by a nonstereotypical self-love that he understands as a love of the exercise of fully realized rational activity. Yet this self-love is not an individual achievement. Its development and preservation require (a) friendships in which individuals desire the good of others for others’ own sakes and (b) a political community where citizens are equal and similar, and where political and economic arrangements promote the conditions under which self-love and friendship flourish.

The Stoic school of philosophy existed for about five centuries, from its founding around 300 BCE to the second century CE. Like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the Stoic philosophers differed on some issues about the virtues, but they seemed also to have shared a common core of views. This section of the entry on character will briefly discuss their common views.

The Stoic philosophers have a view of character that is close to Socrates’, but they reach it through agreement with Aristotle. The Stoics assume that the good life for human beings is a life in accord with nature. They agree with Aristotle that the human being’s essence is a life in accord with reason. So to find what accords with nature, they look to the development of the human being’s rational powers. They think that as a person begins to use reason instrumentally to satisfy and organize his desires and appetites, he comes to value the exercise of reason for its own sake. He realizes that conduct that exhibits a rational order is far more valuable than any of the natural advantages (such as health, friendship, or community) pursued by his individual actions. Human good, after all, as Aristotle argued, should be stable, under our control, and hard to take from us. The Stoics conclude that human good consists in excellent rational activity, for a person can guide his actions by rational choice, no matter what misfortunes he may encounter. The virtuous person becomes the sage ( sophos ) who has and acts on knowledge of the good. His actions are informed by his insights about the advantages of perfecting one’s rationality by acting in agreement with the rational order of nature. Like Socrates, the Stoic view of virtue focuses on the virtuous person’s cognitive state: it is his knowledge of the rational order of the universe and his desire to accord with that rational order that leads him to act as he does.

To be virtuous, there is no need to develop any capacities other than cognitive capacities, for the Stoics claim against Plato and Aristotle that there is really no non-rational part of the soul. Although the Stoics admit that there are passions such as anger, fear, and so on, they treat them as mistaken judgments about what is good and evil. Since the sage or virtuous person is wise and has no mistaken judgments about the good, he has no passions. So if the sage loses any natural advantages in misfortune, he has no emotion about them. Rather, he views them as “indifferents” ( adiaphora ). One might wonder, then, how the sage can truly be said to be virtuous. For if he views the health and welfare of himself and others as indifferents, why would he act to secure or protect his or others’ welfare, as presumably a virtuous person would? The Stoics reply that natural advantages are still pursued, but only to achieve agreement with nature and to realize fully one’s rational powers. They are “preferred indifferents.”

Unlike Plato and Aristotle, the Stoics did not think virtue was developed and sustained by any particular kind of community. Granted, social relationships and community are among the preferred indifferents in that they are to be preferred to the opposite conditions of hostility, war, and enmity. But they are not necessary for anyone’s happiness. If we lose them, it is not a loss of a genuine good. So the Stoic Epictetus (c. 55–c.135), a freed slave, argued that the death of one’s family members is no real loss and is no worse than the breaking of a cup. The community that did matter to the Stoics was cosmic. When persons achieve perfect rationality, they accord with the rational order of a universe ruled by divine reason. This shows that all of us, virtuous or not, are ruled by one law and so belong to one universal community. As rational beings, we recognize this for we recognize that we share reason with other human beings. The Stoic Marcus Aurelius (121–180), a Roman emperor, makes the connections in this way: “If this be so [i.e., that reason is shared], then also the reason which enjoins what is to be done or left undone is common. If this be so, law also is common; if this be so, we are citizens; if this be so, we are partakers in one constitution; if this be so, the Universe is a kind of Commonwealth” (Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations , iv.4). The Stoics concluded that, as rational beings, we have no reason not to extend our concern beyond our family, friends, and immediate community to our fellow-citizens of the world community.

The Stoics came to represent a way of life according to which someone might strive for the well-being of others, whether friend or stranger, without caring about material rewards or worldly success. Because their view of virtue was independent of any particular social or political structure, their message held an appeal for all sorts of people, Greek or non-Greek, slave or free, rich or poor.

For more detailed discussion of Greek views of character, see Dent (1975), Irwin (1989, 1996), and Sherman (1989).

3. Virtue and moral character after the Greeks

Since the publication of Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy” in 1958 (see Introduction above), it has become routine to say that virtue and moral character have been neglected topics in the development of western moral philosophy since the Greeks. Rather than thinking about what it is to flourish and live well, moral philosophers, it is argued, became focused on a different set of notions: obligation, duty, and law.

Anscombe and others have suggested how such a move might have taken place. The Stoic ideas outlined above may have influenced early Christians such as St. Paul to develop the idea of a natural law that applies to all human beings. Once Christianity became more widespread, natural law could be understood in terms of God’s directives in the Bible. Still later, after the European political revolutions of the 17 th and 18 th centuries, there was intellectual room for secularized versions of the same idea to take hold: duty or obligation was understood in terms of obedience to moral law(s) or principles that do not come from God but are devised by human beings. Morally right action was action in accord with moral law(s) or principles. On such a view, where the central focus is on obedience to moral law, the virtues and moral character are secondary to action in accordance with law. Someone who acts rightly may develop standing habits or dispositions of doing so, and these habits then constitute the virtues or good character.

This section of the entry on moral character will provide a brief summary of some important developments both in this “modern” approach to moral character and in what appear to be revivals of the pre-Christian Greek interest in the psychological foundations of character.

In the writings of the early natural law theorists, Greek views of virtue sometimes came under strong criticism. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), for example, objected to Aristotle’s approach to virtue and especially to his attempts to find a mean in terms of which to understand justice. It does not matter, Grotius complained, what moves someone to act unjustly – the only thing that matters is that unjust action violates the rights of others. Grotius acknowledged that one may develop emotional habits that support right action, but he thought this was a matter of having reason control passions and emotions so that they do not interfere with right action. That reason should control passions indicates that the desired state is for one part of us to rule the other, not for both parts, in Aristotle’s words, to speak with the same voice. On this view, moral character is a state closer to what the Greeks considered self-mastery or continence than it is to what they considered virtue.

Even though the natural law theorists tended to assimilate virtue to continence, they still admitted that that there was an area of moral life in which motive and character mattered. That was the area of “imperfect duty” (as contrasted with “perfect duty”). Under a perfect duty what is owed is specific and legally enforceable by political society or courts; but action in accord with imperfect duty cannot be compelled, and what is owed under an imperfect duty is imprecise. Generosity is an example of the latter, justice of the former. In the case of generosity, one has a duty to be generous, but one cannot be legally compelled to be generous, and when or how generosity is shown is not precisely specifiable. But in the case of generosity, the motive of the agent counts. For if I give money to a poor person I encounter on the street and do so because I want others to think well of me, I have not acted generously and performed my imperfect duty. When I give generously, I must do so out of concern for the good of the person to whom I give the money.

For more detailed discussion of Grotius and the natural law theorists, and of the modern developments Anscombe attacked, see Schneewind (1990, 1998). For a discussion of the persistence of Aristotelian ethics in the early modern period and a response to Schneewind, see Frede (2013).

The tendencies to find room for motive and character in the area of imperfect duty, and to assimilate virtue with continence, resurface in the writings of several moral philosophers of the 17 th and 18 th centuries. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is an illustrative case. In the Metaphysics of Morals , Kant divides moral philosophy into two domains, that of justice or law on the one hand (the Doctrine of Right ), and that of ethics or virtue on the other (the Doctrine of Virtue ). The duties that form the subject matter of the Doctrine of Right are like the natural law theorists’ perfect duties: they are precise, owed to specifiable others, and can be legally enforced. They require that we take or forego certain actions. Other duties (which form the subject matter of the Doctrine of Virtue ) are duties to adopt certain ends. Many of them are imperfect, in that they do not specify how, when, or for whom (in the case of duties to others) they should be achieved. Examples are the duty not to let one’s talents rust or the duty not to deny help to others. Because we cannot be compelled to adopt ends, but must do so from free choice, these duties are not legally enforceable. They require inner, not outer, legislation, so we must impose them on ourselves. Because, according to Kant, we are always fighting against the impulses and dispositions that oppose the moral law, we need strength of will and self-mastery to fulfill our imperfect duties. This self-mastery Kant calls courage.

That virtue is a form of continence for Kant is also suggested by his treatment of other traits such as gratitude and sympathy. Although Kant thinks that feelings cannot be required of anyone, some feelings are nevertheless associated with the moral ends we adopt. If we adopt others’ happiness as an end, we will not take malicious pleasure in their downfall. On the contrary, we will naturally feel gratitude for their benevolence and sympathy for their happiness. These feelings will make it easier for us to perform our duties and are a sign that we are disposed to do so. Kant remarks of sympathy that “it is one of the impulses that nature has implanted in us to do what the representation of duty alone would not accomplish” (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals , Ak. 457).

Thus it matters to Kant that we perform the duties of virtue with the properly cultivated emotions. But to do so is not to develop our nature so that the two parts of us, reason and passion, are unified and speak with the same voice. Rather, if we perform our duties of virtue in the right spirit, one part of us, reason, retains control over the other part, passion. Kant writes that virtue “contains a positive command to a man, namely to bring all his capacities and inclinations under his (reason’s) control and so to rule over himself … for unless reason holds the reins of government in its own hands, man’s feelings and inclinations play the master over him” (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals , Ak. 408).

For more detailed discussion of Kant’s views on virtue, see O’Neill (1996).

Yet there are other philosophers for whom an interest in virtue or good character takes a turn more reminiscent of the Greeks. This revival of Greek ideas can be seen in philosophers who show an interest in the psychological foundations of good character.

David Hume (1711–1776) explicitly professes a preference for ancient ethics (Hume, Enquiries , 318), claiming that morals are the one science in which the ancients are not surpassed by the moderns (Hume, Enquiries , 330). Like some of the Greek moralists, Hume thought morality must be rooted in our passional nature. For morality moves us to action whereas reason alone, Hume thought, does not. His preference for ancient ethics is most obviously seen in his focus on the nature of the virtues and in his efforts to explain how virtues arise from our feelings and desires.

Hume divides the virtues into two types: artificial and natural. Artificial virtues include justice, promise-keeping, and allegiance to legitimate government. Natural virtues include courage, magnanimity, ambition, friendship, generosity, fidelity, and gratitude, among many others. Whereas each exercise of the natural virtues normally produces good results, the good of artificial virtues is indirect in that it comes about only as a result of there being an accepted practice of exercising these virtues.

Hume’s discussion of justice illustrates how the artificial virtues emerge from our feelings and desires. Hume notes that following the rules of justice does not always produce good results. Consider the judges who “bestow on the dissolute the labour of the industrious; and put into the hands of the vicious the means of harming both themselves and others” (Hume, Treatise , 579). Hume thinks that as persons become aware that stability of possessions is advantageous to each individually, they also realize that stability is not possible unless everyone refrains from disturbing others’ possessions. As this awareness becomes more widespread and effective in people’s behaviors, there arises a convention to respect the possessions of others. This redirection of self-interest, aided by our natural tendency to sympathize with the feelings of others who benefit from stability of possession, gives rise to our approval of justice. In this way, Hume argues, the virtue of obeying laws arises naturally from our feelings and desires.

Hume’s indebtedness to Greek ethics can be seen even more clearly in his discussion of the natural virtues. Of these, one important group (consisting of courage, magnanimity, ambition, and others) is based on, or may even be a form of, self-esteem: “[W]hatever we call heroic virtue, and admire under the character of greatness and elevation of mind, is either nothing but a steady and well-established pride and self-esteem, or partakes largely of that passion. Courage … and all the other shining virtues of that kind, have plainly a strong mixture of self-esteem in them, and derive a great part of their merit from that origin” (Hume, Treatise , 599–600). Yet these virtues based on self-esteem must be tempered by a second group that includes generosity, compassion, fidelity, and friendship; otherwise traits like courage are “fit only to make a tyrant and public robber” (Hume, Treatise , 603). This second group of virtues is based on broadly-based feelings of good will, affection, and concern for others.

Hume acknowledges that his second group of natural virtues owes a debt to the Stoic view that a virtuous person ought to be concerned with the welfare of all human beings, whether they be intimate or stranger; and in describing the first group of natural virtues, Hume looks to Socrates as someone who has achieved a kind of inner calm and self-esteem. In addition, his general approach to the natural virtues, that some are based on self-esteem and others on friendly feelings and good will, is reminiscent of Aristotle’s exploration of the psychological foundations of virtue.

Hume believes that we develop self-esteem from what we do well, if what we do well expresses something distinctive and durable about us, and he seems to recognize that realized deliberative abilities are among the most durable features of ourselves. As we gain a facility at deliberation, we come to develop self-esteem and enjoy who we are, like Aristotle’s virtuous person who enjoys most the exercise of his developed deliberative powers. Moreover, Hume’s recognition that self-esteem must be tempered by benevolence is reflected in Aristotle’s argument that the development and preservation of proper self-love requires friendships in which persons come to care for others for others’ own sakes.

In addition to exploring these psychological foundations of virtue, Hume seems to accord them a role that is reminiscent of the Aristotelian view that virtue is a state in which reason and passion speak with the same voice. Instead of making virtue and good character subordinate to the requirements of reason, as we saw in the natural law theorists and in Kant, Hume appears to give virtue and good character room to guide and constrain the deliberations of agents so as to affect what they determine to be best to do. By doing so, Hume goes some way toward indicating how good character is different from continence.

Hume’s account of how we determine what is right and wrong illuminates the role character plays. When Hume’s “judicious spectator” determines what is right and wrong, she fixes on some “steady and general” point of view and “loosens” herself from her actual feelings and interests. It appears that someone who has developed an enjoyment in the activities of deliberating and reflecting, and whose self-esteem is based on that enjoyment, will be more likely to take up the point of view of the judicious spectator and to perform the subtle corrections in response that may be necessary to loosen oneself from one’s own perspective and specific passions. Someone whose self-esteem is based on an enjoyment taken in deliberation will be attuned to wider complications and will have the wider imaginative powers needed for correct deliberation from a steady and general point of view. Hume’s view of the relation between passion and deliberation is reminiscent of the Aristotelian view that someone with proper self-love will also be practically wise, in that his self-love will enable him to size up practical situations correctly and determine correctly what it is best to do.

For more detailed discussion of Hume’s view of the virtues, see Baier (1991). On Hume’s indebtedness to Greek ethics, see Homiak (2000).

Another illustration of the use of Greek views of character can be found in the writings of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). Although Marx is best known for his virulent criticism of capitalism and Mill for his exposition and defense of liberal utilitarianism, these philosophers are treated together here because their approach to character is at crucial points deeply Aristotelian. Both Marx and Mill accept Aristotle’s insight that virtue and good character are based on a self-esteem and self-confidence that arises from a satisfaction taken in the fully realized expression of the rational powers characteristic of human beings. They also accept Aristotle’s recognition that the production and preservation of this type of self-esteem require that individuals be part of specific socio-political structures. Aristotle emphasized the need for a special type of political community. Marx attended to smaller democratic workplaces. Mill’s focus, still different, was on political equality and equality in the family.

Marx’s early Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 is famous for the discussion of how the organization of work under capitalism alienates workers and encourages them to accept the values of capitalist society. Workers who are committed to capitalist values are characterized primarily by self-interested attitudes. They are most interested in material advancement for themselves, they are distrustful of others’ seemingly good intentions, and they view others primarily as competitors for scarce positions. Given these attitudes, they are prone to a number of vices, including cowardice, intemperance, and lack of generosity.

Marx’s discussion of alienated labor suggests how work can be re-organized to eliminate alienation, undermine commitment to traditional capitalist values and goals, and produce attitudes more characteristic of Aristotle’s virtuous person. The key to this transformation lies in re-organizing the nature of work so that workers can express what Marx calls their “species-being” or those features of the self that are characteristically human. Very much like Aristotle, Marx seems to mean by this an individual’s ability to reason, and in particular his powers of choosing, deciding, discriminating, and judging. If work is re-organized to enable workers to express their rational powers, then each worker will perform tasks that are interesting and mentally challenging (no worker will perform strictly monotonous, routine, unskilled tasks). In addition, workers will participate in deliberations about the ends to be achieved by the work they do and how to achieve those ends. And, finally, these deliberations will be organized democratically so that the opinions of each worker are fairly taken into account. When these conditions are put into place, labor is no longer “divided” between skilled and unskilled or between managerial and non-managerial. Marx suggests that if work is reorganized in these ways, it will promote feelings of solidarity and camaraderie among workers and eventually between these workers and those in similar situations elsewhere. For the fact that workers can express their characteristic human powers in action, coupled with the egalitarian conditions in the workplace, can upset competitive feelings and promote respect by removing the bases for inferiority and superiority. Workers then come to exhibit some of the more traditional virtues such as generosity and trustfulness, and avoid some of the more traditional vices such as cowardice, stinginess, and self-indulgence.

That Marx’s views seem derivative of Aristotle’s in important ways is not surprising, for, unlike Hume whose knowledge of Aristotle is not fully known, Marx explicitly drew upon Aristotle’s works. For further discussion of the extent to which Marx drew on Aristotle, see DeGolyer (1985).

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) defended a version of liberal utilitarianism, but scholars disagree about what kind of utilitarianism that was. We can safely say that, as a utilitarian, Mill thought human conduct should promote the happiness or welfare of those affected. But was Mill an act-utilitarian, who thought that right acts are those that promote as much happiness as can be done on the particular occasion, given the alternatives available to the agent? Or was he a rule-utilitarian, who thought that right conduct was conduct permitted by rules that, when publicly known to be generally accepted or followed, would maximize happiness or welfare? Or was he a motive-utilitarian, who thought that one should act as the person with the motives or virtues most productive of happiness should act? (For a discussion of these interpretive questions, see the related entry on Mill’s moral and political philosophy .) Although this entry will steer clear of these interpretive hurdles and will concentrate on Mill’s discussion of the nature of happiness and of some of the institutional structures that can promote happiness, these questions of interpretation will be relevant to a final assessment of Mill in Section 4, below.

In his essay On Liberty Mill claims that his version of utilitarianism rests on a conception of happiness that is appropriate to people as “progressive” beings (Mill 1975, 12). And in Utilitarianism he suggests that this conception is focused on the “higher pleasures” that serve to distinguish humans from animals (Mill 1979, 7–11). These higher pleasures turn out to be the activities and pursuits that exercise what in Aristotle’s view are our powers of practical deliberation – of choosing, judging, deciding, and discriminating. In On Liberty , Mill writes: “He who lets the world … choose his plan of life for him has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold his deliberate decision” (Mill 1975, 56). As a person develops his powers of practical deliberation and comes to enjoy their exercise, he gains the self-esteem that is the basis of a virtuous and well-lived life.

For further discussion of Mill’s view of happiness, see Brink (1992).

Mill argued that seriously unequal societies, by preventing individuals from developing their deliberative powers, mold individuals’ character in unhealthy ways and impede their ability to live virtuous lives. For example, Mill argued, in deep disagreement with the views of his own time, that societies that have systematically subordinated women have harmed both men and women, making it almost impossible for men and women to form relationships of genuine intimacy and understanding. In The Subjection of Women , Mill wrote that the family, as constituted at his time, was a “school of despotism,” which taught those who benefited from it the vices of selfishness, self-indulgence, and injustice. Among working class men, the fact that wives were excessively dependent on their husbands inspired meanness and savagery. In chapter IV of The Subjection of Women , Mill goes so far as to claim that “[a]ll the selfish propensities, the self-worship, the unjust self-preference, which exist among mankind, have their source and root in, and derive their principal nourishment from, the present constitution of the relation between men and women” (Mill 1988, 86). Women who have been legally and socially subordinated to men become meek, submissive, self-sacrificing, and manipulative. In brief, men evidence the vices of the slave master, while women evidence the vices of the slave. For moral lives and psychologically healthy relationships to be possible, Mill called for altered marital arrangements, supported by changes in law, that would promote the development and exercise of women’s deliberative powers along with men’s. Only under such conditions could women and men acquire feelings of real self-esteem rather than feelings of false inferiority and superiority.

Like Aristotle, Mill recognized the power of political institutions to transform individuals’ desires and aims and to improve them morally. In chapter III of Considerations on Representative Government , Mill writes approvingly of the democratic institutions of ancient Athens. He believed that by participating in these institutions, Athenians were called upon to rise above their individual partialities and to consider the general good. By co-operating with others in governing their community, he wrote, each citizen “is made to feel himself one of the public, and whatever is their interest to be his interest” (Mill 1991, 79).

And like Marx, Mill recognized the morally disturbing effects of a life limited to routine and unskilled labor. In Principles of Political Economy , he recommended that relations of economic dependence between capitalists and workers be eliminated in favor of cooperatives either of workers with capitalists or of workers alone. In these associations members were to be roughly equal owners of tools, raw materials, and capital. They worked as skilled craftspersons under self-imposed rules. They elected and removed their own managers. By elevating the dignity of labor, Mill thought such cooperatives could convert “each human being’s daily occupation into a school of the social sympathies and the practical intelligence” and bring people as close to social justice as could be imagined (Mill 1900, vol. 2, 295).

T. H. Green (1836–1882) began as a student and teacher of classics before turning to philosophy. He knew Plato’s and Aristotle’s Greek texts well. In developing his view of a person’s good in Book III of his Prolegomena to Ethics , Green finds his own views anticipated in Plato and Aristotle and especially in Aristotle’s treatment of happiness, the human good, and the particular virtues. Green aims to show that a person’s good consists in his “self-satisfaction” or “self-realization.” To realize the self requires that one fully develop his capacities as a rational agent. And that requires aiming at the good of others for their own sake. Green thought Aristotle was right about the nature of the virtuous person’s motive. In Prolegomena 263 he notes Aristotle’s view that the virtuous person acts tou kalou heneka (for the sake of the fine), and he recognizes that acting in this way requires that the agent have concern for the good of the community. So the agent’s good is connected to the good of others.

To illustrate his reading of Aristotle, Green discusses two of Aristotle’s virtues: courage and temperance. He notes that both virtues appear to be more restricted in scope than commonsense would suggest. In discussing courage, Aristotle limits courage to facing fear in danger of death in defense of one’s city ( Nicomachean Ethics 1115a25–29). A man who faces death by drowning or disease is not courageous. Courage is restricted to facing death in battle for one’s city because such action aims at the common good and is the finest form of death. Green uses these points in Aristotle’s discussion to show that Aristotle’s view rests on a general principle that can widen the circumstances of courage in a way that Green accepts. In Green’s view, courage is a matter of facing the danger of death “in the service of the highest public cause which the agent can conceive” (1969, 260).

Green explains Aristotle’s restrictions on temperance in a similar way. Not every form of restraint counts as temperance for Aristotle. It is limited to restraint of the pleasures of appetitive desires for food, drink, and sex, the pleasures we share with non-human animals. The intemperate person is like the gourmand who prayed that his throat might become longer than a crane’s: he is interested in sensation and does not value the exercise of his rational capacities. Green recognizes that Aristotle needs to check these appetitive desires because intemperance is a danger to the common good. He writes: “such a check should be kept on the lusts of the flesh as might prevent them from issuing in what a Greek knew as hubris – a kind of self-assertion and aggression upon the rights of others … which was looked upon as the antithesis of the civil spirit” (1969, 263).

Green was right to find his views anticipated in the Greeks. He saw, as Aristotle did, that living well requires the exercise of one’s developed rational powers, and that persons who have realized their powers and have formed virtuous traits of character aim at the common good, which is a part of their own good. Like Aristotle, Green thought that such development required that one be a participant in a special kind of political community – one “where the free combination of mutually respecting citizens” enact equal law and the common good (1969, 263).

For further discussion of Green’s interpretation and use of Aristotle’s views, see Irwin (2009).

As indicated in the introduction to this entry, a renewed philosophical interest in questions of virtue and character was indirectly the result of the publication in 1971 of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice . In contrast to many of his contemporaries who focused on meta-ethical questions and the meaning of moral terms, Rawls (1921–2002) moved moral and political philosophy in a practical direction and stimulated modern philosophers to explore the psychological grounding of good moral character. Early in Part II of A Theory of Justice , Rawls makes what he calls a “perfectly obvious” point – that the social system shapes the wants and aspirations that its citizens come to have. It determines “in part the sort of persons they want to be as well as the sort of persons they are” (1999a, 229). These points, Rawls claims, have always been recognized.

How do just institutions shape our wants and aims and affect the sort of people we become? The institutions of interest to Rawls are those that make up a society’s “basic structure”. These are the institutions that make social cooperation possible and productive. They include the political constitution, the structure of the economy, legalized forms of property ownership, the family in some form, and others. Rawls defends two principles of justice as regulations for the basic structure of his just society: (1) the equal liberties principle, according to which each person has the same claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties. (2) and a second principle that specifies two conditions that must be satisfied in order for socio-economic inequalities to be permissible. These conditions are fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.

Consider Rawls’s discussion of the guarantee of equal liberties under the first principle of justice. This principle covers two types of liberties, personal liberties and political liberties. Under this principle, each person is entitled to liberties of both kinds as a basic right. But Rawls goes further to argue that political liberties must be assured their “fair value” (1999a, 243). This means that chances to hold office and to exercise political influence must be independent of socio-economic position. Otherwise, “political power rapidly accumulates and becomes unequal” (1999a, 199). To preserve fair value, Rawls does not follow Aristotle’s strategy of making political participation a requirement of all citizens. Yet he shares with Aristotle the view that the guarantee of fair value has the aim of promoting and sustaining citizens’ common status as equal citizens (1999a, 205–206). Moreover, Rawls agrees with Mill that political participation contributes to the moral development of citizens. As noted in Section 3.4 above, when praising Athenian democracy, Mill writes that when a citizen participates in public deliberation, “he is called upon … to weigh interests not his own, to be guided, in case of conflicting claims by another rule than his private partialities; to apply at every turn principles and maxims which have for their reason of existence the general good … . He is made to feel himself one of the public, and whatever is their interest to be his interest” (1991, 79). The guarantee of political liberty both strengthens citizens’ sense of their own value and enlarges their moral sensibilities.

In part III, Rawls turns to the question of how individuals acquire a desire to act justly, and to do so for the right reasons, when they have lived under and benefited from just institutions (1999a, 399). Rawls’s account is indebted to Aristotle’s views in several ways. First, Rawls holds, as Aristotle did, that if proper institutions are in place, then the attitudes and behaviors associated with the desire to act justly will emerge naturally, as a result of psychological tendencies persons experience in ordinary life. For, other things being equal, it is part of human psychology to enjoy most the exercise of one’s realized powers (see Rawls’s discussion of what he calls the Aristotelian Principle), to enjoy the realization of others’ powers (see his discussion of the “companion effect” to the Aristotelian principle), and to form ties of attachment and friendship to persons and institutions who promote one’s good. Second, and again like Aristotle, Rawls argues that if citizens are fortunate to live in a community that provides the basic goods they need for realizing their powers and that offers them opportunities to develop and use their abilities in shared activities with others, then they will develop a stable sense of their own value that is based on their own accomplishments and their status as equal citizens, rather than on a position more advantaged relative to others. With a stable sense of their own value and a reasonable hope of achieving their aims, citizens will want to act justly for the right reasons. They will not be prone to rancor, jealousy, and hostile envy, “one of the vices of hating mankind” (1999a, 466).

Only a brief discussion of these points of coincidence is possible here. Consider, first, sections 72–75 of A Theory of Justice , where Rawls outlines what he calls the three stages of moral development, governed by three psychological laws. These laws explain how individuals come to have new, non-derivative, final ends as they acquire ties of love, friendship, affection, and trust. As Aristotle recognized, these ties are caused to occur in individuals as they come to recognize others’ evident intention to act for their good, and to enjoy what they and others can do.

At the first stage of moral development, on the assumption that family institutions are just, children come to love their parents as a result of their parents’ demonstrating clearly that their children are enjoyed and valued. At the second stage, on the assumption that cooperative associations are fairly arranged and known to be so, members of reasonably successful cooperative associations (Rawls’s “social unions”) come to enjoy and value their cooperative partners. This happens when members do their parts responsibly, each contributing to a mutually recognized goal, and where all participants display appropriate abilities. Under these conditions, participants come to enjoy their own participation, to enjoy the display of others’ skills and abilities, and to form ties of friendship and trust with their cooperative partners. Because the activities are complementary, individuals can see themselves in what others do. In this way, individuals’ sense of what they are doing is worthwhile. Their self-love, to use Aristotelian language, becomes a group achievement.

Finally, at the third stage, as individuals come to realize how the institutions regulated by the principles of justice promote their good and the good of their fellow citizens, they become attached to these principles and develop a desire to apply and to act in accordance with them. Like the major institutions of Aristotle’s ideal polis , the institutions regulated by Rawls’s two principles of justice have as their aim to promote citizens’ good by providing the social bases of individuals’ self-worth (Rawls’s primary good of “self-respect”). The provision of equal liberties in accordance with the first principle of justice enables citizens to form the associations in which their common aims and ideals can be pursued. As we have seen, these associations are necessary for self-respect to be produced and maintained. The guarantee of the fair value of political liberty, along with fair equality of opportunity under Rawls’s second principle of justice, prevent excessive accumulation of property and wealth and maintain equal opportunity of education for all, enabling everyone with similar motivation and ability to have roughly equal prospects of culture and achievement (1999a, 63). Taken together, these two principles ensure that persons have reasonable hopes of achieving their aims. Finally, the difference principle serves to ensure everyone a decent standard of living, no matter what individual citizens’ social position, natural talents, or fortune may be. The difference principle, Rawls writes, corresponds to the “idea of not wanting to have greater advantages unless this is to the benefit of others who are less well off” (1999a, 90). In these various ways, the two principles, in combination, amount to a publicly acknowledged recognition that each citizen has equal worth.

Once these just institutions are in place, Rawls thinks that the worst aspects of the social division of labor can be overcome. No one, he writes, “need be servilely dependent on others and made to choose between monotonous and routine occupations which are deadening to human thought and sensibility” (1999a, 464). Here Rawls notes the same problems with many types of paid labor that so disturbed Aristotle. Paid labor often limits the worker’s exercise of her decision-making powers and requires her to conform to the direction of others. Of course, Rawls does not suggest solving these problems as Aristotle did. But he thinks that they need to be solved, and that a just society can solve them, perhaps by adopting Mill’s proposal (see Section 3.4 above) to restructure workplaces to become worker-managed cooperatives (2001, 178).

For further discussion of Rawls’s views on how institutions shape our characters, see Freeman (2007, ch. 6) and Edmundson (2017, ch. 3).

4. Contemporary Questions About Character

Marx, Mill, and Rawls suggest how character can be molded by antecedent circumstances – Marx by economic structures; Mill by paid work, political life, and family relationships; Rawls by the institutions regulated by the two principles of justice. Yet these insights about the effect of institutions on character seem to raise other, more troubling questions: if our character is the result of social and political institutions beyond our control, then perhaps we are not in control of our characters at all and becoming decent is not a real possibility.

Among contemporary philosophers, Susan Wolf is one of several who address these worries. In her Freedom Within Reason Wolf argues that almost any morally problematic upbringing could be coercive and could render a person unable to see what he ought morally to do or render him unable to act on that recognition. As examples, Wolf cites ordinary citizens of Nazi Germany, white children of slave owners in the 1850s, and persons brought up to embrace conventional sex roles. Wolf thinks that there is no method for determining which upbringings and influences are consistent with an ability to see what should be done and to act accordingly, and hence she thinks there is always the risk that we are less responsible for our actions than we may hope.

Such skepticism may be misplaced. For if good character is based on naturally occurring psychological responses that most people (including persons brought up to embrace racist and sexist beliefs) experience without difficulty, then most people should be able to become better and to be responsible for actions that express (or could express) their character.

Still, this is not to say that changing one’s character is easy, straightforward, or quickly achieved. If character is formed or malformed by the structures of political, economic, and family life, then changing one’s character may require access to the appropriate transforming forces, which may not be available. In modern societies, for example, many adults still work at alienating jobs that do not afford opportunity to realize the human powers and to experience the pleasures of self-expression. Women in particular, because of unequal domestic arrangements, nearly total responsibility for childcare, and sex segregation in the workplace, often endure low-paying, dead-end jobs that encourage feelings of self-hatred. In a family where economic, and hence psychological, power is unequal between women and men, affection, as Mill recognized, may harm both parties. Thus many women and men today may not be well-positioned to develop fully the psychological capacities Aristotle, Marx, Mill, and Rawls considered foundational to virtuous character.

These considerations indicate why character has become a central issue not only in ethics, but also in feminist philosophy, political philosophy, philosophy of education, and philosophy of literature. If developing good moral character requires being members of a community in which citizens can fully realize their human powers and ties of friendship, then one needs to ask how educational, economic, political, and social institutions should be structured to make that development possible. Some contemporary philosophers are now addressing these issues. For example, Martha Nussbaum uses Aristotelian virtues to outline a democratic ideal in (1990b). In (1996) Andrew Mason explores how capitalist market forces make it difficult for virtues to flourish. In (1987) Jon Elster interprets Marx as offering a conception of the good life that consists in active self-realization, which can be promoted or blocked by economic and political institutions. In (1993) John Bernard Murphy reconstructs Aristotle’s views on practical deliberation and decision-making to show how they can yield a theory of productive labor that helps us see what is wrong with work in the contemporary world and how to re-organize it. Rosalind Hursthouse applies an Aristotelian view of the emotions to an investigation of racist attitudes in (2001). In (2010) Marcia Homiak develops Aristotle’s and Mill’s views on the transformative power of institutions to explore the possibilities for living virtuously in an imperfect world. Laurence Thomas (1989) uses Aristotle’s discussions of self-love and friendship to argue that friendship helps to develop and maintain good moral character. And if one is interested in understanding what the nature of moral character is and the extent to which it can be altered, one will find useful examples of both good and bad moral character in literary writers. For philosophical discussion of literary writers’ use of character, see Taylor (1996) and Nussbaum (1990a).

Finally, it might be useful to note that this brief discussion of the history of philosophical views of character indicates that character has played, or can play, an important role in a variety of western ethical traditions, from Greek virtue-centered views to Kantianism to utilitarianism to Marxism. So Anscombe’s provocative claim with which this entry began – that the two major traditions in modern moral theory (Kantianism and utilitarianism) have ignored questions of virtue and character to their detriment – does not seem altogether true. Nevertheless, some of the views surveyed here seem to give a more prominent role to character and virtue than do others. It is not easy to explain precisely what this prominence consists in. Although a full treatment of these issues is beyond the scope of this essay, a preliminary indication of how they might be addressed can be provided. For further discussion of these questions, see Trianosky (1990), Watson (1990), Homiak (1997), and Hursthouse (2001).

As this entry has indicated, Kant’s views do provide a role for virtue, for it matters to Kant that we perform our imperfect duties with the right spirit. The virtuous person has the properly cultivated tendencies to feel that make it easier for her to perform her imperfect duties. These feelings support her recognition of what is right and are a sign that she is disposed to perform her duties. Because Kant views the emotions as recalcitrant and in continual need of reason’s control, virtue amounts to a kind of self-mastery or continence. One might put this point by saying that, for Kant, virtuous character is subordinate to the claims of practical reason.

Aristotle’s view, on the other hand, is usually considered a paradigm example of a “virtue ethics”, an ethical theory that gives priority to virtuous character. To see what this might mean, recall that Aristotle’s virtuous person is a genuine self-lover who enjoys most the exercise of her abilities to think and know. This enjoyment guides her practical determinations of what actions are appropriate in what circumstances and renders her unattracted to the pleasures associated with the common vices. Her properly cultivated emotional tendencies are not viewed as recalcitrant aspects of her being that need to be controlled by reason. Rather, her practical decisions are informed and guided by the enjoyment she takes in her rational powers. One might put this point by saying that, in Aristotle’s view, practical deliberation is subordinate to character.

One might then ask of other ethical views whether they take practical deliberation to be subordinate to character or vice versa. As this entry has indicated, Hume appears to side with Aristotle and to give character priority over practical deliberation. For he suggests that someone with the natural virtues based on self-esteem will have the wider imaginative powers needed for correct deliberation from the standpoint of the judicious spectator. Whether character is subordinate to reason for Mill may depend on what sort of utilitarianism Mill can be shown to espouse. If he is a motive-utilitarian who thinks that one should act as the person with the motives or virtues most productive of happiness would act, then a case could be made for his giving character priority over practical reason. If, on the other hand, he is an act- or rule-utilitarian, he would seem to give character a role that is subordinate to reason. These brief remarks indicate that the question of whether an ethical theorist gives priority to character can only be determined by a thorough analysis of the various critical elements of that philosopher’s view.

5. Moral Character and Empirical Studies

This section will begin with a brief discussion of some recent philosophical work on character that relies on results in experimental social psychology. This philosophical work calls into question the conceptions of character and virtue that are of concern especially to the ancient Greek moralists and to contemporary philosophers whose work derives from ancient views. Philosophers impressed by this tradition in experimental social psychology – which is often labeled “situationism”– have denied that traits of character are stable, consistent, or evaluatively integrated in the way that ancient or contemporary philosophers suggest. The ancient moralists assumed that virtues are, in John Doris’s description, “ robust traits: if a person has a robust trait, they can be confidently expected to display trait-relevant behavior across a wide variety of trait-relevant situations, even where some or all of these situations are not optimally conducive to such behavior” (2002, 18). Doris and others argue that traits are not robust in this sense. They are not stable or consistent and are wrongly invoked to explain why people act as they do. Rather, these philosophers argue, and as the experimental tradition indicates, much of human behavior is attributable to seemingly trivial features of the situations in which persons find themselves. Hence the appropriateness of the label “situationist” for the philosophers espousing these views. For variations on this view, see Harman (1999, 2000), Doris (2002), and Vranas (2005).

It is beyond the scope of this entry to discuss this work in detail. Some summary remarks, however, are in order. (For a detailed discussion, see the entries on empirical approaches to moral character , section 1, and moral psychology: empirical approaches , section 4.)

Skepticism about robust traits of character emerges from some famous experiments in social psychology. For example, in one experiment persons who found a dime in a phone booth were far more likely to help a confederate who dropped some papers than were those who did not find a dime. Another experiment involved seminary students who agreed to give a talk on the importance of helping those in need. On the way to the building where their talks were to be given, they encountered a confederate slumped over and groaning. Those who were told they were already late were much less likely to help than those who were told they had time to spare. These experiments are taken to show that minor factors without moral significance (finding a dime, being in a hurry) are strongly correlated with people’s helping behavior.

Perhaps most damning for the robust view of character are the results of the experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. In these experiments the great majority of subjects, when politely though firmly requested by an experimenter, were willing to administer what they thought were increasingly severe electric shocks to a screaming “victim.” These experiments are taken to show that if subjects did have compassionate tendencies, these tendencies cannot have been of the type that robust traits require.

Philosophers influenced by the experimental tradition in social psychology conclude that people do not have the broadly based, stable, consistent traits of character that were of interest to the ancient and modern moralists, or to contemporary philosophers working with some version of those views. Rather, the psychological studies are taken to show that persons generally have only narrow, “local” traits that are not unified with other traits into a wider behavioral pattern. Persons are helpful when in a good mood, say, but not helpful when in a hurry, or they are honest at home but not honest at work. This skepticism about robust traits thus poses a challenge to contemporary philosophers, especially those who work with some version of the ancient views, to develop an account of character that is consistent with empirical results.

These interpretations of the experiments in social psychology have been challenged by both psychologists and philosophers, especially by philosophers working in the tradition of virtue ethics (see related entry on virtue ethics ), who claim that the character traits criticized by situationists have little to do with the conception of character associated with the ancient and modern moralists. The objectors say that the situationists rely on an understanding of character traits as isolated and often non-reflective dispositions to behave in stereotypical ways. They wrongly assume that traits can be determined from a single type of behavior stereotypically associated with that trait.

Consider again the payphone and seminarian studies. It may seem obvious that one cannot respond to all appeals for help, and it may seem doubtful that any reflective person thinks one should. This suggests that being a helpful person requires some thinking about what is most important in one’s life, for calls of help can justifiably go unanswered if the individual believes that responding will interfere with her doing something else that she takes to be of higher moral importance. So we should not expect helping behavior to be wholly consistent, given the complex situations in which persons find themselves. Some of the philosophers discussed in this entry, such as the natural law theorists (in section 3.1) and Kant (in section 3.2), might make this point by reminding us of the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties. Unlike perfect duties, which require that we take or forego certain actions, the duty to assist others in need is imperfect, in that how, when, and whom we assist is not precisely specifiable and so is within the individual’s discretion. The general point, on which most of the ancient and modern moralists would agree, is that being helpful cannot be understood in isolation from other values, aims, and traits that the individual has. (For discussion of how values can be unified, see Wolf 2007.)

Or consider the Milgram experiments. During the experiments, many of the subjects protested even while continuing to obey the experimenter’s commands. In post-experiment interviews with subjects, Milgram noted that many were completely convinced of the wrongness of what they were doing. But the presence of conflict need not indicate an absence, or loss, of character. On a traditional conception of character, as examined in this entry, many of Milgram’s subjects are best described as incontinent. They have character, but it is neither virtuous nor vicious. Many of us seem to fall into this category. We often recognize what it is right to do but we nevertheless do not do it.

In short, the objectors say that the situationists rely on a simplified view of character. They assume that behavior is often sufficient to indicate the presence of a trait of character, and they ignore the other psychological aspects of character (both cognitive and affective) that, for most of the philosophers discussed in this entry, form a more or less consistent and integrated set of beliefs and desires. In particular, the objectors say, the situationists ignore the role of practical deliberation (or, in the case of virtuous character, practical wisdom).

For variations on these replies to the situationists, see Kupperman (2001), Kamtekar (2004), Radcliffe (2007), Sabini and Silver (2005), Sreenivasan (2013), and cf. von Wright (1963,136–154).

Some recent philosophical work on character aims to meet the skepticism of the situationist challenge directly, by developing a theory of virtue grounded in psychological studies that are compatible with the existence of robust traits. This section provides a brief summary of two such approaches to virtue.

For extensive and nuanced discussion, see Miller (2013, 2014) and Section 2 of the entry on empirical approaches to moral character , section 2.

One approach is inspired by the “cognitive-affective personality system” (the so-called CAPS model) that has been developed by social and cognitive psychologists. Rather than looking for empirical evidence of robust traits in behavioral regularities across different types of situations, the CAPS model (and philosophers impressed by this model) focus on the importance of how agents understand the situations they are in. The model views the structure of personality as the organization of relationships among “cognitive-affective units”. These units are clusters of dispositions to feel, desire, believe, and plan that, once activated, cause various thoughts, feelings, and behavior to be formed. Philosophers who ground their understanding of virtue in this type of psychological theory extend the CAPS model to cover robust virtuous traits of character. These traits are viewed as enduring dispositions that include the appropriate clusters of thinking (practical reason), desire, and feeling, manifested in cross-situational behavior.

For detailed discussion of the CAPS model and its possible value to philosophers, see Miller (2003, 2014), Russell (2009) and Snow (2010).

Other philosophers do not find the extension of the CAPS model especially helpful, for it does not seem to move us past what we commonsenically recognize as virtue. We are prepared to begin with the idea that being virtuous is not just being disposed to act, but also to feel, respond, and to reason. And not simply to reason, but to reason well. For this approach to be helpful, we need some account of what excellent practical reasoning consists in.

Some philosophers aim to provide what is needed by looking to psychological studies of enjoyment. They propose that virtues are analogous to (some) skills, in that the kind of habituation involved in developing and acting from virtuous character is like the sort of intelligent habituation typical of the development and exercise of (some) complex skills. The empirical studies of enjoyment show that, other things being equal, we enjoy the exercise of developed abilities, and the more complex the ability, the more we enjoy its exercise. If the acquisition and exercise of virtue is analogous to the development and exercise of complex ability, we can, this approach suggests, explain a variety of central points about virtuous activity – for example, that, like (some) skills, virtuous activity is experienced as being its own end, as being enjoyable in itself, and thus as valued for its own sake. For discussion of virtue as similar to complex skill, see Annas (2011), Bloomfield (2014), Stichter (2007, 2011), and cf. Sherman (1989).

Situationists might nevertheless reply that to emphasize the role of expertise in practical reasoning is to make good moral character an ideal that too few of us, if any, can achieve. On some conceptions of moral knowledge, such as that proposed by Plato in the Republic , acquiring the knowledge necessary for virtue takes over 50 years of psychological and intellectual training. And on Aristotle’s view, as this entry has indicated in Section 2.4 above, the full realization of our rational powers that is required for good moral character is not something that we can achieve on our own. The development and preservation of good moral character requires political institutions that promote the conditions under which self-love and friendship flourish. The situationist might wonder how useful traditional conceptions of good character can be, if acquiring virtuous character is a long and difficult process made possible by social institutions that do not yet exist. The situationist may take these problems as support for his view that we are better off thinking in terms of local traits rather than robust traits.

In ending, it is appropriate to recall the discussion in Section 4, above. On the one hand, on a view of character such as Aristotle’s, which relies on ordinary capacities to experience the pleasures of self-expression and to respond with friendly feelings to others’ efforts to help, almost everyone is capable of becoming better . On the other hand, if Aristotle and others (such as Marx, Mill, T. H. Green, and Rawls) are correct that character is shaped by the institutions of political, economic, and family life, then becoming good will require access to the appropriate institutions. Yet this is not to suggest that becoming good is out of our reach. It may be helpful here to recall Rawls’s description of a “realistic utopia” in The Law of Peoples when, following Rousseau in The Social Contract , he writes that just institutions take “men as they are” and “laws as they might be.” (Rawls, 1999b, 7) Our psychological natures and the institutions that promote good qualities of character are, in his view and in the views of others discussed throughout this entry, congruent.

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , and Politics , in The Complete Works of Aristotle , J. Barnes (ed.), 2 vols, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
• Aurelius, M., The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus , A. Farquharson (tr.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944.
• Green, T. H., Prolegomena to Ethics , A. C. Bradley, (ed.), New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1969.
• Grotius, H., On the Law of War and Peace , F. Kelsey (tr.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925.
• Hume, D., Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals , L. A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902.
• –––, A Treatise of Human Nature , L. A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), rev. P. H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
• Kant, I., The Metaphysics of Morals , M. Gregor (tr.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N., (eds.), 1987, The Hellenistic Philosophers , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Marx, K., Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 , in The Marx-Engels Reader , R. C. Tucker (ed.), New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.
• Mill, J.S., Principles of Political Economy , 2 vols., London: Colonial Press, 1900.
• –––, On Liberty , D. Spitz (ed.), New York: W. W. Norton, 1975.
• –––, Utilitarianism , G. Sher (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979.
• –––, The Subjection of Women , S. Okin (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988.
• –––, Considerations on Representative Government , Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1991.
• Plato, Complete Works , J. Cooper (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1999.
• Rawls, J., 1999a, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
• –––, 1999b, The Law of Peoples , Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
• –––, 2001, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement , Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
• Annas, J., 2011, Intelligent Virtue , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Anscombe, G., 1958, “Modern Moral Philosophy”, Philosophy , 33: 1–19.
• Baier, A., 1991, A Progress of Sentiments , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Bloomfield, P., 2014, “Some Intellectual Aspects of the Cardinal Virtues”, Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics , 3: 287–313.
• Brink, D., 1992, “Mill’s Deliberative Utilitarianism”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 21: 67–103.
• Cooper, J., 1980, “Aristotle on Friendship”, in Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics , A. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press.
• DeGolyer, M., 1985, Science and Society, Justice and Equality: An Historical Approach to Marx , Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School.
• Dent, N., 1975, The Moral Psychology of the Virtues , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Doris, J., 2002, Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Edmundson, W., 2017, John Rawls: Reticent Socialist , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Elster, Jon, 1993, “Self-Realization in Work and Politics: The Marxist Conception of the Good Life,” in The Main Debate: Communism vs. Capitalism , T. Machan (ed.), New York: Random House.
• Frede, D., 2013, “The Historic Decline of Virtue Ethics” in The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics , D. Russell (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Freeman, S., 2007, Rawls , London: Routledge.
• Harman, G., 1999, “Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 99: 315–331.
• –––, 2000, “The Nonexistence of Character Traits”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 100: 223–226.
• Homiak, M., 1997, “Aristotle on the Soul’s Conflicts: Toward an Understanding of Virtue Ethics”, in Reclaiming the History of Ethics: Essays for John Rawls , A. Reath, B. Herman, and C. Korsgaard (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2000, “Hume’s Ethics: Ancient or Modern?”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 81: 215–236.
• –––, 2010, “Yes, We Can Live Reasonably Decently and Flourish in an Imperfect World”, in The Value of Time and Leisure in a World of Work , M. Haney and A. D. Kline, (eds.), Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Rowman and Littlefield.
• Hursthouse, R., 2001, On Virtue Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Irwin, T., 1985, “Aristotle’s Conception of Morality,” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy , 1: 115–143.
• –––, 1989, Classical Thought , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1996, “The Virtues: Theory and Common Sense in Greek Philosophy” in How Should One Live? , R. Crisp (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 2007, The Development of Ethics (Volume I), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2009, The Development of Ethics (Volume III), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kamtekar, R., 2004, “Situationism and Virtue Ethics on the Content of Our Character”, Ethics , 114: 458–91.
• Kraut, R., 2002, Aristotle , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kupperman, J., 2001, “The Indispensability of Character”, Philosophy , 76: 239–50.
• Mason, A., 1996, “MacIntyre on Modernity and How It Has Marginalized the Virtues”, in How Should One Live? , R. Crisp (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Miller, C., 2003, “Social Psychology and Virtue Ethics”, The Journal of Ethics , 7: 365–92.
• –––, 2013, Moral Character: An Empirical Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2014, Character and Moral Psychology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Murphy, James Bernard, 1993, The Moral Economy of Labor: Aristotelian Themes in Economic Theory , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Nussbaum, M., 1990a, Love’s Knowledge , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1990b, “Aristotelian Social Democracy”, in Liberalism and the Good , R. Douglass, G. Mara, and H. Richardson (eds.), New York: Routledge.
• O’Neill, O., 1996, “Kant’s Virtues”, in How Should One Live? , R. Crisp (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Radcliffe, E., 2007, “Moral Naturalism and the Possibility of Making Ourselves Better”, in Moral Cultivation , B. Wilburn (ed.), Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Rowman and Littlefield.
• Russell, D., 2009, Practical Intelligence and the Virtues , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “From Personality to Character to Virtue”, in Current Controversies in Virtue Theory , M. Alfano (ed.), New York: Routledge, 91–106.
• Schneewind, J. B., 1990, “The Misfortunes of Virtue”, Ethics , 101: 42–63.
• –––, 1998, The Invention of Autonomy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sabini, J. and Silver, M., 2005, “Lack of Character? Situationism Critiqued,” Ethics , 115: 535–562.
• Schofield, M., 2006, “Aristotle’s Political Ethics”, in The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics , R. Kraut (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Sherman, N., 1989, The Fabric of Character: Aristotle’s Theory of Virtue , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Snow, N., 2010, Virtue as Social Intelligence: An Empirically Grounded Theory , New York: Routledge.
• Sreenivasan, G., 2013, “The Situationist Critique of Virtue Ethics” in The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics , D. Russell (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Stichter, M., 2007, “Ethical Expertise: the Skill Model of Virtue”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 10: 183–194.
• Taylor, G., 1996, “Deadly Vices?”, in How Should One Live? , R. Crisp (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Thomas, L., 1989, Living Morally: A Psychology of Moral Character , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Trianosky, G., 1990, “What is Virtue Ethics All About?”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 27: 335–344.
• von Wright, G., 1963, The Varieties of Goodness , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Vranas, P., 2005, “The Indeterminacy Paradox: Character Evaluations and Human Psychology”, Noûs , 39: 1–42.
• Watson, G., 1990, “On the Primacy of Character”, in Identity, Character, and Morality: Essays in Moral Psychology , O. Flanagan and A. Rorty (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Wolf, S., 1990, Freedom Within Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2007, “Moral Psychology and the Unity of the Virtues”, Ratio , 20: 145–67.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• BEARS: Brown Electronic Article Review Service in Moral and Political Philosophy , maintained by James Dreier and David Estlund, Philosophy Dept., Brown University

Aristotle, General Topics: ethics | character, moral: empirical approaches | ethics: ancient | ethics: virtue | Green, Thomas Hill | Kant, Immanuel: moral philosophy | Marx, Karl | Mill, John Stuart: moral and political philosophy | moral psychology: empirical approaches | Rawls, John | Stoicism

Copyright © 2019 by Marcia Homiak

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

9 Powerful Reasons Why Your Moral Character Matters

By Frank Sonnenberg 22 Comments

It’s not always easy to admit a mistake, persevere during tough times, or follow through on every promise made. It’s not always comfortable to convey the hard truth or stand up for your beliefs. In the short term, it may not be beneficial to do right by your customers, to put people before profits, or to distance yourself from a questionable relationship. BUT, in the long run, doing the right thing is the clear path to both success and happiness. Moral character matters.

Achieve peace of mind. People with character sleep well at night. They take great pride in knowing that their intentions and actions are honorable. People with character also stay true to their beliefs, do right by others, and always take the high ground. (So refreshing.)

Strengthen trust. People with character enjoy meaningful relationships based on openness, honesty, and mutual respect. When you have good moral character, people know that your behavior is reliable, your heart is in the right place, and your word is good as gold.

Build a solid reputation. People with character command a rock-solid reputation . This helps them attract exciting opportunities “like a magnet.”

Reduce anxiety. People with character carry less baggage. They’re comfortable within their own skin, and they accept responsibility for their actions. They never have to play games, waste precious time keeping their stories straight, or invent excuses to cover their behind.

Increase leadership effectiveness. Leaders with character are highly effective . They have no need to pull rank or resort to command and control to get results. Instead, they’re effective because they’re knowledgeable, admired, trusted, and respected. This helps them secure buy-in automatically, without requiring egregious rules or strong oversight designed to force compliance.

Build confidence. People with character don’t worry about embarrassment if their actions are publicly disclosed. This alleviates the need for damage control or the fear of potential disgrace as a result of indiscretions.

Become a positive role model. People with character set the standard for excellence. They live their life as an open book, teaching others important life lessons through their words and their deeds.

Live a purpose-driven life. People with character live a life they can be proud of. They’re driven to make a difference and to do right by others rather than trying to impress others with extravagance. (Sounds like a wonderful legacy to me.)

Build a strong business. Doing the right thing is good business. Everything else being equal, talented people would rather work for — and customers would rather buy from — companies that do right by their people, customers, and communities. While unprincipled business tactics may provide short-term results, it’s NOT a long-term strategy.

Moral Character Matters

Please leave a  comment  and tell us what you think or share it with someone who can benefit from the information.

This is adapted from Follow Your Conscience :  Make a Difference in Your Life & in the Lives of Others  By Frank Sonnenberg

Additional Reading: Living Life With a Purpose Be Humble: Don’t Let Success Go to Your Head Take Ownership By Taking Responsibility Courage: No Guts, No Glory Reputation: You Can’t Run from Your Shadow Honesty: The Plain and Simple Truth A Promise Is a Promise Hard Work Is Good For Your Soul

If you like this article, subscribe to our blog so that you don’t miss a single post. Get future posts by RSS feed, email or Facebook . It’s FREE. Click your favorite option (top right).

Follow me on LinkedIn , Instagram , X  (Formerly Twitter), Pinterest  and Facebook

About Frank Sonnenberg

Frank Sonnenberg is an award-winning author and a well-known advocate for moral character, personal values, and personal responsibility. He has written 10 books and has been named one of “America’s Top 100 Thought Leaders” and one of “America’s Most Influential Small Business Experts.” Frank has served on several boards and has consulted to some of the largest and most respected companies in the world. Frank’s newest book, Leadership by Example: Be a role model who inspires greatness in others , was released June 2023.

Additionally, his blog — FrankSonnenbergOnline — has attracted millions of readers on the Internet. It was recently named one of the “Best Self-Improvement and Personal Development Blogs” in the world and continues to be listed among the “Best Inspirational Blogs on the Planet.”

© 2024 Frank Sonnenberg. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from FrankSonnenbergOnline.com is strictly prohibited.

December 23, 2014 at 1:33 pm

Great article Frank. Thank so much for sharing.

December 24, 2014 at 10:29 am

Thank YOU AbdAllah

December 29, 2014 at 4:30 pm

Loads of people can benefit from 3, 4, & 5. Thanks for breaking out a small sample from your book! It’s fun to watch people when they operate from the 5 point of view.

December 30, 2014 at 9:46 am

I’m glad you like the book sample 🙂

With regard to #5, I had the opportunity of working for a incredible leader. It was an awesome experience. I haven’t worked for him in twenty years and yet I’d still jump through hoops for him. There was no need to control or pull rank. We considered it an honor and privilege to be part of his team. Just think about the energy and excitement created by this kind of leadership.

Have a wonderful New Year.

February 4, 2015 at 10:21 am

Thanks for sharing the article, really appreciable, going through the article I came to know how moral character is useful for us. One more thing I want you to emphasise -“Empathy motivates Morality and society lacks Empathy according to Arthur Schopenhauer Compassion is the basis of Morality but without empathy there can be no Compassion ” Looking forward your response!

March 7, 2016 at 9:26 am

Good One Frank. Most articles talk about how character can be developed. I haven’t seen one that talks of the practical benefits of having a good character. This one does and succinctly. Cheers!

March 7, 2016 at 10:22 am

Thanks Vish. I believe there’s a direct correlation between character, success, and happiness. The goal of this post was to build a case for that premise. I’m glad you like it.

October 30, 2016 at 8:17 am

So true and these elements have bee my experience :)) Thank you Frank!

October 31, 2016 at 5:53 am

Thanks Maria. I’m glad you’ve experienced this first hand. As I like to say, “Moral character is the DNA of success and happiness.”Have an awesome week 🙂

April 2, 2017 at 11:17 am

Great article, Frank! Thanks for sharing the facts and for spreading the positive vibes! This is refreshing to hear.

April 3, 2017 at 8:45 am

Thanks Graham. As I say,”Character is the fingerprint of your soul.”

Thanks for taking the time to write. Have an awesome week!

July 10, 2017 at 12:30 am

Insightful tips. Got me revaluating myself. I really appreciate how you simplify your words and drive home the message. I always look forward to reading from you.

November 25, 2019 at 9:32 am

that was quite informative, character is the principal ingredient needed for a successful living. thank you very much Mr. Frank for this article

November 26, 2019 at 3:57 pm

Thanks Emmanuel. I’m glad you like it.

As I say, “Moral character is the DNA of success and happiness.”

Thanks for taking the time to write.

June 2, 2020 at 6:56 am

Your Article has highlighted very deep concept about personality. I agreed, You will benefit by having good character. Your good personal character will help you achieve difficult goals and tasks. Positive social character allows you to be trusted and admired by others. Your attitudes and how you act toward other people often determines their desire to deal with you, both in business and in personal relationships.

June 2, 2020 at 2:25 pm

You’re right on all counts, David

As I like to say, “Moral character is the DNA of success and happiness.”

Thanks or taking the time to write.

March 1, 2022 at 4:05 pm

I am doing lessons on character building, free sessions, and I am just discovering your writing and greatly appreciate your points on moral character. Thanks for sharing, I hope I can use some of the material to share during those presentation. Thank you

March 2, 2022 at 10:09 am

That’s awesome, Cynthia.

Please let me know if I you have any questions. Also, make sure to check out the free downloadable posters on my site. They can be used as handouts. Here’s the link for your convenience.

Free downloadable posters

Thanks for taking the time to write 🙂

August 17, 2022 at 4:37 am

Practicing good moral values IS A CONSTANT STRUGGLE. Constant struggles are closely related to anxiety, bad sleep, and quite a lot of other negative consequences that are worth mentioning in any discourse on “good moral values” 🙂

August 17, 2022 at 8:03 am

I believe that stress, poor sleep, and reduced self-esteem can be directly linked to poor moral character. As I say, “Follow to your conscience. Sleep well.”

August 18, 2022 at 2:04 am

re Hi Anne, Hi Frank, I believe that stress and poor sleep is a part of “survival mode”. Survival mode is when people fight for their life or when they fight with powerful evil forces. Imagine a policiman who cannot sleep because solving a crime puts him and his family in danger. That is a dilemma. At the same time he cannot afford to lose his job. Exhaustion and fear for life put him in survival mode – – does that mean that the policeman has poor moral character? I do not think so. Anne

August 18, 2022 at 8:36 am

Just like matches aren’t the cause of all house fires, poor moral character isn’t the cause of all stress and anxiety.

That said, did you ever walk into a room where the air was so thick, you could cut it with a knife? What was the cause of the toxic environment? I’m sure dishonesty, deceit, and deception may have been involved.

The fact is that distrust promotes disharmony and uncertainty. It causes people to scrutinize what others say and second-guess their intent. As such, it is anxiety provoking and debilitating.

Mistrust can kill individual aspirations, cripple personal and business relationships, strip the muscle from our most powerful leaders, and crush the productivity and morale of our best and brightest people.

Trust is not granted because you possess power, wealth, or status. Similarly, trust isn’t given because you demand or desire it. When someone places their trust in you, you’ve proven that you’re worthy of their trust and that you’ll work hard to preserve it.

If you care about your credibility and reputation, desire the respect of friends and family, or want to be taken seriously in life…trust matters. You gain people’s trust based on your moral character, your competence, and by consistently displaying admirable behavior.

Everything you say and do will strengthen or weaken the bond of trust. Moral character matters.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Popular Posts
• Top Business Posts
• Live and Learn
• Inspirational Quotes

CHARACTER MATTERS

• 24 Key Personality Traits

BROWSE TOPICS

• Relationships
• Trust and Integrity
• Communication
• Career Advice
• Life Balance
• Best of the Best
• Business Management

How to Write a Character Analysis Essay

A character analysis essay is a challenging type of essay students usually write for literature or English courses. In this article, we will explain the definition of character analysis and how to approach it. We will also touch on how to analyze characters and guide you through writing character analysis essays.

Typically, this kind of writing requires students to describe the character in the story's context. This can be fulfilled by analyzing the relationship between the character in question and other personas. Although, sometimes, giving your personal opinion and analysis of a specific character is also appropriate.

Let's explain the specifics of how to do a character analysis by getting straight to defining what is a character analysis. Our term paper writers will have you covered with a thorough guide!

What Is a Character Analysis Essay?

The character analysis definition explains the in-depth personality traits and analyzes characteristics of a certain hero. Mostly, the characters are from literature, but sometimes other art forms, such as cinematography. In a character analysis essay, your main job is to tell the reader who the character is and what role they play in the story. Therefore, despite your personal opinion and preferences, it is really important to use your critical thinking skills and be objective toward the character you are analyzing. A character analysis essay usually involves the character's relationship with others, their behavior, manner of speaking, how they look, and many other characteristics.

Although it's not a section about your job experience or education on a resume, sometimes it is appropriate to give your personal opinion and analysis of a particular character.

What Is the Purpose of a Character Analysis Essay

More than fulfilling a requirement, this type of essay mainly helps the reader understand the character and their world. One of the essential purposes of a character analysis essay is to look at the anatomy of a character in the story and dissect who they are. We must be able to study how the character was shaped and then learn from their life. 

A good example of a character for a character analysis essay is Daisy Buchanan from 'The Great Gatsby.' The essay starts off by explaining who Daisy is and how she relates to the main character, Jay Gatsby. Depending on your audience, you need to decide how much of the plot should be included. If the entire class writes an essay on Daisy Buchanan, it is logical to assume everyone has read the book. Although, if you know for certain that your audience has little to no knowledge of who she is, it is crucial to include as much background information as possible. 

After that, you must explain the character through certain situations involving her and what she said or did. Make sure to explain to the reader why you included certain episodes and how they have showcased the character. Finally, summarize everything by clearly stating the character's purpose and role in the story. 

We also highly recommend reading how to write a hook for an essay .

Still Need Help with Your Character Analysis Essay?

Different types of characters.

To make it clear how a reader learns about a character in the story, you should note that several characters are based on their behaviors, traits, and roles within a story. We have gathered some of them, along with vivid examples from famous literature and cinema pieces:

Types of Characters

• Major : These are the main characters; they run the story. Regularly, there are only one or two major characters. Major characters are usually of two types: the protagonist – the good guy, and the antagonist: the bad guy or the villain. 
• Protagonist (s) (heroes): The main character around whom most of the plot revolves. 

For example, Othello from Shakespeare's play, Frodo from The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, Harry Potter from the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling, and Elizabeth Bennet from 'Pride and Prejudice' by Jane Austen.

• Antagonist (s): This is the person that is in opposition to the protagonist. This is usually the villain, but it could also be a natural power, set of circumstances, majestic being, etc. 

For example, Darth Vader from the Star Wars series by George Lucas, King Joffrey from Game of Thrones, or the Wicked Queen from 'Snow White and Seven Dwarfs.'

• Minor : These characters help tell the major character's tale by letting them interact and reveal their personalities, situations, and/or stories. They are commonly static (unchanging). The minor characters in The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien would be the whole Fellowship of the ring. In their own way, each member of the Fellowship helps Frodo get the ring to Mordor; without them, the protagonist would not be a protagonist and would not be able to succeed. In the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling, minor characters are Ronald Weasley and Hermione Granger. They consistently help Harry Potter on his quests against Voldemort, and, like Frodo, he wouldn't have succeeded without them.

On top of being categorized as a protagonist, antagonist, or minor character, a character can also be dynamic, static, or foil.

• Dynamic (changing): Very often, the main character is dynamic.

An example would also be Harry Potter from the book series by J.K. Rowling. Throughout the series, we see Harry Potter noticing his likeness to Voldemort. Nevertheless, Harry resists these traits because, unlike Voldemort, he is a good person and resists any desire to become a dark wizard.

• Static (unchanging): Someone who does not change throughout the story is static.

A good example of a static character is Atticus Finch from “How to Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee. His character and views do not change throughout the book. He is firm and steady in his beliefs despite controversial circumstances. 

• Foils : These characters' job is to draw attention to the main character(s) to enhance the protagonist's role.

‍ A great example of a foil charact e r is Dr. Watson from the Sherlock Holmes series by Arthur Conan Doyle.

How to Analyze a Character 

While preparing to analyze your character, make sure to read the story carefully.

• Pay attention to the situations where the character is involved, their dialogues, and their role in the plot.
• Make sure you include information about what your character achieves on a big scale and how they influence other characters.
• Despite the categories above, try thinking outside the box and explore your character from around.
• Avoid general statements and being too basic. Instead, focus on exploring the complexities and details of your character(s).

How to Write a Character Analysis Essay?

To learn how to write a character analysis essay and gather a more profound sense of truly understanding these characters, one must completely immerse themself in the story or literary piece.

• Take note of the setting, climax, and other important academic parts.
• You must be able to feel and see through the characters. Observe how analysis essay writer shaped these characters into life.
• Notice how little or how vast the character identities were described.
• Look at the characters' morals and behaviors and how they have affected situations and other characters throughout the story.
• Finally, observe the characters whom you find interesting. 

Meanwhile, if you need help writing a paper, leave us a message ' write my paper .'

How Do You Start a Character Analysis Essay

When writing a character analysis essay, first, you have to choose a character you'd like to write about. Sometimes a character will be readily assigned to you. It's wise to consider characters who play a dynamic role in the story. This will captivate the reader as there will be much information about these personas.

Read the Story

You might think that if you already have read the book, there is no need to do so again; however, now that you know the character you would like to focus on, reading it again will have plenty of benefits. It will give you an opportunity to be more precise while reading the scenes that relate directly to your character and are important for his/her analysis. While reading the book, pay attention to every tiny detail to make sure you grasp the whole array of your character's traits. 

Consider the following things:

• What specific descriptions does the author provide for each character?

For example, when J.K. Rowling describes Harry Potter for the first time, she describes his clothes as old and oversized, his hair untidy, and his glasses as broken. It might seem just like a simple description, but she expresses compassion and pity for an orphan neglected by his only relatives. 

• What kinds of relationships does your character have with others?

Think about how Harry builds up his friendships with others. First, he and Ron do not like Hermione because she acts like a know-it-all, but when she gets stuck in the dungeons with a horrendous troll, he rushes to save her regardless. 

• How do the actions of the character move the plot forward?

In 'The Philosopher's Stone,' Harry is very observant of any events taking place at school. He analyzes people's actions, which builds up the plot around the stone and its importance for the magical world.

Get help with your character analysis from our experts.

Choose a Dynamic Character

Choosing a dynamic character is a great idea. This does not necessarily have to be the protagonist, but a character that undergoes many changes has grown throughout the story and is not boring and/or static. This gives you a perfect advantage to fully show the character and make your paper entertaining and engaging for the reader. If you choose a character that is not very dynamic, your essay might seem monotonous because your character will not end up doing much and will not be very involved in the story.

While you are reading, it is useful to take notes or highlight/underline any of the critical elements of the story. This will add depth to your character description(s). By providing vivid and specific examples, you connect your reader to the character, and the character comes alive in their eyes. Review your notes and formulate the main idea about your character when you're finished reading with your character in mind.

Make an initial draft while taking note of the character analysis essay outline provided by your instructor. You may follow the recommended character analysis essay format if you have not been provided with a sample.

Choose a Main Idea

While reading the story, make sure you keep track of your notes. It is a good idea to look at them, choose the ones that are the most representative of your character and find patterns. This will be your thesis. Then, you must support this idea with examples and situations involving your character. 

If your character were Jem Finch from 'To Kill a Mockingbird' by Harper Lee, the main idea would be how his personal character is shaped through racial conflicts, social inequalities, and internal struggles between public opinion, his own views, and what is actually right. Essaypro offers you history essay help. Leave us a notice if you need to proofread, edit, or write your essay.

Character Analysis Questions

Now that you have jotted down some main concepts about your character, here is a list of questions that can help you fill in the blanks you might still have:

• Where do the events involving your character take place?
• What are the relationships between your character and other significant characters?
• What is the primary change your character has gone through throughout the story?
• What is your character's background?
• What is your character's occupation?
• What kind of emotions does your character go through?
• What are your character's values?
• What is your character's value?
• Does your character have friends?
• Is there a lesson your character has learned by the end of the story?
• Does the character achieve the goals he/she has set for himself/herself?

Make a Character Analysis Essay Outline

When you're unsure how to write a character synopsis, remember that creating a literary analysis outline is one of the most critical steps. A well-constructed character analysis outline will keep your thoughts and ideas organized.

Character Analysis Essay Introduction:

Make the introduction to your paper brief and meaningful. It should hold together your entire essay and spark your audience's interest. Write a short description of the character in question. Don't forget to include a character analysis thesis statement which should make a case for the character's relevance within the narrative context.

Character Analysis Essay Body:

Subdivide your body paragraphs into different ideas or areas regarding the character. Look at your professor's rubric and ensure you'll be able to tackle all the requirements. You should also be provided with questions to be answered to formulate your analysis better. The body should answer the following questions:

• What is the character's physical appearance, personality, and background?
• What are the conflicts the character experiences, and how did he/she overcome them?
• What can we learn from this character?
• What is the meaning behind the character's actions? What motivates him/her?
• What does the character do? How does he/she treat others? Is he/she fair or unjust?
• What does the character say? What is his/her choice of words? Does he/she have a rich vocabulary?
• How does the character describe themself? How do others describe him/her?
• What words do you associate with the character? Perhaps a word like 'hope,' 'bravery,' or maybe even 'freedom'?

Character Analysis Essay Conclusion:

It's time to master the secrets of how to write character analysis essay conclusions. Your ending should also hold your ideas together and shape a final analysis statement. Mention things about the character's conflicts that we could experience in real life. Additionally, you can write about how a character should've reacted to a certain situation.

Character Analysis Essay Example

Read our blogs ‘Character Analysis of Jem Finch', 'The Great Gatsby Book Through Daisy Buchanan Character,' 'Analysis of Characters in Beowulf,' or simply use these character analysis essay examples to reference your paper. You might also be interested in a synthesis essay example .

Now that you know what is character analysis, it might be time to choose a character to write about. If you find yourself in a situation where you need to type ' do my homework for me ,' you should contact our writers. You also get a free plagiarism report, formatting, and citing when  buying an essay from us!

STRUGGLE with Writing an Essay?

Address to our professional writers and get help asap!

How To Write A Character Analysis Essay?

How to start a character analysis essay, how to write an introduction for a character analysis essay, related articles.

Importance of Good Character

Importance of good character english essay, 150 words on the importance of good character.

A good character is a blessing. The character is created by the man. Character is more valuable than diamonds. Nothing is lost when wealth is lost. Much is lost when one’s health is gone, but everything is lost when one’s character is gone. If you want to succeed in life, you must develop and keep a spotless reputation.

It is one of the most important aspects of our long-term success. an American writer observed brilliantly, “It is a magnificent and glorious reality that every man is the author of his own character,” A Nobel character, on the other hand, is not created in a flash or with little work. Consistent and well-directed effort results in a noble character. Character constantly demonstrates leadership and value.

A good character is more valuable than rubies, wealth, crowns, or kingdoms, and developing it is the most honorable task on earth.

250 Words on the Importance of Good Character

A good character is a blessing. The man creates the character. Character is more valuable than diamonds. Nothing is lost when wealth is lost. Much is lost when one’s health is gone, but everything is lost when one’s character is gone. If you want to succeed in life, you must develop and keep a spotless reputation.

It is one of the most critical aspects of our long-term success. “It is a magnificent and glorious reality that every man is the author of his own character,” an American writer observed eloquently. On the other hand, a Nobel character is not created in a flash or with little work. Consistent and well-directed effort results in a noble character. We are the creators of our personalities. Our mental abilities are developed. Plant the seeds and care for them properly, and they will grow into noble character.

Character constantly demonstrates leadership and value. A person with a decent personality does not harm others. Being of excellent character entails possessing qualities such as honesty, responsibility, and bravery. It is critical in your life to constantly be honorable and honest in your profession and relationships with others.

A good character will assist you in accomplishing challenging goals and responsibilities. Others can trust and admire you if you have a positive social character. It takes precedence above riches, health, and pleasure. A good character is more valuable than rubies, wealth, crowns, or kingdoms, and cultivating it is the most honorable task on earth.

350 Words on the Importance of Good Character

A good character is a blessing. The man creates the character. Character is more valuable than diamonds. Nothing is lost when wealth is lost. Much is lost when one’s health is gone, but everything is lost when one’s character is gone. If you want to succeed in life, you must develop and keep a spotless reputation. A person with a decent character does no harm to others.

Character constantly demonstrates leadership and value. Having a good character entails possessing qualities such as honesty, responsibility, and courage. It is critical in your life to always be honorable and honest in your profession and in your interactions with others. We are the creators of our own personalities.

The germ is not a tree, the acorn is not an oak, and the mind is not a personality. God creates the mind, but man creates the character. The mind is a garden, and a character is a fruit; the mind is a white paper, and the character is the writing we write on it; the mind is a metallic plate, and the character is the engraving we make on it. If the mind is the store, then the character represents our earnings from the transaction.

Many tiny acts and efforts result in enormous revenues derived from rapid sales and modest percentages, yet with such huge characters. A good character will assist you in accomplishing difficult goals and responsibilities. Others will trust and admire you if you have a positive social character. It takes precedence above riches, health, and pleasure.

A good character is more valuable than rubies, wealth, crowns, or kingdoms, and cultivating it is the most honorable task on Earth.

We have an Essay on every topic, Check the complete list here . If you are Studying in Matric Free Video Lectures of Maths , Physics and English are here, and if we got you covered for I.COM Business Maths also. 

More Related Posts

PH Full Form – What Does PH Stand For?

10 Lines on Respect Elders

First Day of College Essay

10 Lines on Education

Past Perfect Tense – English Comprehension

College Election Essay

Character Analysis Essay Guide: How to Write a Good Character Analysis Essay

Writing in high schools or colleges is one endless activity. And while it may be hectic and frustrating for some, to others, it is a sweet experience because essays provide opportunities for students to show their creativity.

A character analysis essay is one of the most essay types you will probably write, depending on your course. These pieces explain and expound on the characters in plays, cinemas, or other literary forms, but they all follow a similar pattern.

And if you’re looking for a guide to help you write your essay, look no further. I’ll walk you through some simple steps to write a character analysis essay.

Tips on How to Write a Good Character Analysis Essay

Writing a character analysis essay is much more than just describing a character. You must look at how that character’s actions affect the story and what it means for them.

Here are some tips on how to write a good character analysis essay.

Read the entire story

Before you start writing a character analysis, you must read the story from beginning to end. This will help you understand the characters better and give your essay more credibility and structure.

New Service Alert !!!

We are now taking exams and courses

Further, it helps you get an overall idea of what’s going on in the book or movie so that you know how much information is available about each character before writing your essay.

And even if you have ever read the story, reading it a subsequent time is still encouraged. This is because it helps you focus your mind on the characters, setting, or plot development. Generally, ensure you’re familiar with every detail of a character before beginning your essay.

Identify the character to analyze

An effective character analysis essay goes deep into detailing a specific character. And depending on your essay length, character choice will play a significant role.

If your professor requires a large word count, protagonists or antagonists are the best characters to choose from rather than minor characters. This is because the main characters have more details than the others.

However, you do not have to go for the protagonist. Instead, go for a dynamic character who undergoes several changes because it gives you more meat to write on.

Reread or rewatch the story with perspective on your character

Now that you have a clear idea of your story and what kind of character you’re writing about, it’s time to start thinking about how this character will move through space and time.

Further rereading the story with this character in mind helps you focus on them alone. Some of the questions to ask yourself in this stage include;

• Description of the character by the author
• What are the character’s actions?
• What is the relationship between the character and others?
• What are the character’s failures and successes?

Take notes identifying the central theme

As you read the story, take notes of important themes. The main theme is the story’s central idea and usually involves a problem or conflict that characters face and often resolves itself by the end of the story.

In addition, the central theme plays throughout all three acts of a play or novel, but they’re usually more apparent in Act 1 than in Acts 2 and 3 because those later acts mainly deal with plot complications and resolutions.

Outline and write the paper

Your paper consists of an introduction, body, and conclusion. The opening is a concise brief of the character in question and leads the reader to gain interest in reading the piece. On the other hand, the body has several sections, but it is a good idea to follow your instructor’s guidelines. At the same time, the conclusion ties everything together and summarizes your entire paper.

How Do You Analyze Characters in an Essay

Generally, analyzing a character entails identifying, determining their role, and understanding their actions. Further, you must explore their relationships with others, identify their traits, and finally identify how they evolve through the book or play.

These are six primary ways of analyzing characters in an essay. Let’s now look at each in detail.

• Character identification

This is a significant step, and you should classify your character as static or dynamic. Additionally, you should identify if they are primary or secondary characters.

• Role determination

After identifying the character, you should move to determine their role. If you go for the main character, it means their part is to bring out the theme, while the secondary characters’ role is to support the achievement of the theme.

• Identify the character’s mentioned roles

Next is to identify the mentioned character roles. Some aspects to help you include why the characters are antagonists or protagonists, their first actions in the story, and how they influence the story.

• Character’s relationships

This entails how the identified character relates with others and the significance of these relationships in the story.

• Identify personality traits

Traits of the character emanate from their actions and relationships. They may include bravery, self-centeredness, or generosity.

How to Write a Thesis Statement for a Character Analysis Essay

Writing a thesis statement for a character analysis essay entails four major steps. These are drawing a rough sketch of the characters, their main traits, role, and functions, and summing all these points into one sentence.

The thesis statement is the main idea of your paper, so it is vital to make sure that the thesis statement is specific, direct, and clear. The body paragraphs should support your thesis statement with specific examples. In other words, each body paragraph should provide support for your thesis statement.

For your statement to be effective, it must include all four mentioned parts. The first part describes the character’s appearance, actions, values, beliefs, and tendencies. It then comprises their relationship, role, and functions.

The role and function of the character will form the bulk of your thesis statement. And because the statement answers the why and how question, you should ensure you provide an entirely detailed explanation of the character’s role and functions and how it contributes to the theme and plot.

After having all these parts, it is time to sum them into one sentence.

How to Write the Introduction of a Character Analysis Essay

Writing the introduction of a character analysis essay is probably the most important because it determines if a reader will continue reading the paper or not. As such, following these steps will help you write the best introduction.

• Start with a quote

Quotes are one of the best ways to start an introduction. However, ensure they are related to the character’s trait. For example, if the character is generous, use a quote about generosity.

• Background information

Next is presenting the literature information. This is where you identify the character’s name, author, and title.

• Character introduction

Your introduction should then introduce the character being analyzed. Some of the information included here include their role, whether they are protagonist, antagonist, static, or dynamic.

Further, you should have a few lines giving a general look and description of this character.

• Have a broad assertion

This part of the introduction is the transition between the character description and the thesis statement. It also entails the central theme of the piece of literature being analyzed.

• Thesis statement

This is the last part of your introduction. It includes your fundamental assertion and thus should be clear. You can also highlight what you will cover in your body paragraphs.

How to Write the Body Paragraphs of a Character Analysis Essay

The body of a character analysis essay is also a significant part because it gives more details about the character. Each paragraph has a topic sentence and specific examples supporting the sentence. In addition, the topic sentence supports your thesis statement.

Further, the body paragraphs are where you will develop your analysis. Each body paragraph should have a topic sentence and specific examples from the work of literature to support that topic sentence.

If possible, include quotations from the text and paraphrases of what other people have said about the character in question.

As you write this section, some of the must-answer questions include the following;

• How does the character describe themselves?
• How do others describe the character?
• What does your character do, and how do they treat others?
• What motivates the character to behave in a specific way?
• What lessons can one learn from the character?
• Does the character encounter conflicts, and how do they solve them?
• What are the character’s appearance, background, and other physical features?

How to Write the Conclusion of Character Analysis Essay

This is the last part and involves three major areas; stating a summary of the entire essay, your opinions, and your thoughts and predictions. You can also note how the character is relevant in real-life situations.

Also see: How long should a conclusion be in an essay? 

Also, this is where you will elaborate on those points and explain why they are relevant to your topic. Any quotes from the source material that shows how well you understand the material being studied should also be included in this paragraph.

Further, the conclusion concludes the character’s role in the story, how they changed over time or why they were essential to the plot. You could also expand on other characters and how they relate to your character of choice.

Generally, your conclusion should have the following;

• Give your opinion on the character as well as their role in the book or movie;
• Mention what you have learned about this character
• Tell how your opinion changed after reading/watching the work
• Indicate what other people may think about this character and give your reasons why they might feel differently than you do
• The application on day-to-day life

Here’s How Ivy League Schools Evaluate Student GPAs

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

One of the main gates on the Brown University campus, decorated with the University crest. (Photo by ... [+] Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images)

A stellar GPA is one of the building blocks of a successful Ivy League application, and as the school year winds down, many students are anxiously seeking to give theirs a final boost. While most students and families understand the importance of a 4.0, few are aware of how top colleges evaluate student GPAs or what they look for when reviewing student transcripts. Though your GPA may seem to be a simple metric, nothing could be further from the case—colleges consider more than just the number, accounting for complexities such as diverse grading systems across schools, trends in grade inflation, and level of course rigor.

Here are three important facts to keep in mind about your GPA as you choose your courses:

1. Your GPA doesn’t directly compare to that of students at other schools.

One common misconception among college applicants is that they can compare their GPAs with those of students attending different schools. However, the GPA is not a universal metric but rather a reflection of an individual's academic performance within their specific educational environment. As a result, comparing GPAs from different schools is like comparing apples and oranges. For instance, some schools offer a plethora of AP, IB, and honors courses, while others may have limited options or offer none at all. Additionally, the weight assigned to AP versus honors versus regular classes varies from school to school. So, your GPA may not hold the same weight as those of your peers at different schools, even if you all have 4.0s.

Admissions officers understand that schools vary in their rigor, curriculum, and grading policies. Therefore, they evaluate your GPA in the context of your high school, considering the courses offered and the academic challenges presented. Instead of fixating on how your GPA compares to your friends’ from other schools, focus on challenging yourself and taking advantage of all the opportunities available to you at your school.

2. GPAs across the country are inflated—and colleges know it.

The last few years have seen surges in high school student GPAs nationwide. While GPA inflation has been on the rise over the last decade, average ACT composite scores are steadily declining. “For the 1.4 million ACT test-takers in the high school class of 2023, the average composite score on the exam was 19.5 out of 36, the lowest score since 1991,” according to The New York Times . The parallel differences, coupled with academic differences across schools, suggest that GPA must be considered in tandem with multiple other factors. Simply put, an A no longer means what it used to on a transcript.

Samsung Issues Critical Update For Millions Of Galaxy Users

Drake kendrick lamar feud timeline another trespasser caught at drake s toronto home police say, the best queen mattresses that promote more restful nights.

Ivy League and other top colleges are well aware of this trend and evaluate student GPAs alongside other metrics such as standardized test scores and AP exam scores in order to better understand a student’s academic skill sets. While some Ivy League and other top schools remain test-optional , they still place emphasis on course rigor and the context offered by your high school profile in order to understand the grades on your transcript.

3. Colleges will recalculate your GPA.

Given the abundance of variables in GPA calculations, colleges often recalculate the metric to create a standardized baseline for comparison between students across different schools. The recalibration may involve adjusting for variations in grading scales or the weighting of honors, International Baccalaureate (IB) or Advanced Placement (AP) courses. The University of California system, for example, calculates students’ UC GPAs by converting grades to grade points (an A is equivalent to 4 points, a B to three points, etc.) for classes taken between summer after 9th and summer after 11th grade, and adding one point for each honors class, and dividing by total classes taken to yield final GPA.*

Other colleges also take additional factors that impact academic performance into consideration, and envelop GPA into a broader, holistic consideration. For instance, the Harvard University lawsuit over affirmative action revealed that Harvard rates students on a scale of 1–6 (with one being the most desirable) in academic, extracurricular, athletic and personal categories. A student’s GPA and test scores are folded together into an academic score which “summarizes the applicant’s academic achievement and potential based on grades, testing results, letters of recommendation, academic prizes, and any submitted academic work.”

This process aims to provide a fair and equitable evaluation of students from different educational backgrounds. Keep in mind that Harvard considers not only your grades, test scores, and academic rigor in this score, but also “evidence of substantial scholarship” and “academic creativity,” which can make the difference between a 1 and a 2 in the scoring system. These systems underscore the importance of taking advantage of every opportunity, showcasing your unique personality and creativity, and seeking to maximize opportunities to improve your performance within the academic landscape of your institution.

By understanding the complex way by which colleges evaluate students’ GPAs, you are better equipped to present a comprehensive and competitive picture of your academic achievements on your transcript and stand out in the competitive Ivy League admissions landscape.

*Variations exist for in-state versus out-of-state students and by high school. Be sure to calculate your GPA following the UC issued guidelines.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions