What properties does ‘a good character’ have?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

In recent Ethics, what properties does ‘a good character’ possess? And how describe ‘a bad character’? Give us some examples and/or an analysis.
How would you describe an individual who has ‘a good character? [size=86](This emphasis is rooted in research in scientific ethics {in turn based in Moral Philosophy going back to work done by Aristotle in 334 BC, resulting in Modern Virtue Theory} and includes some of which has been learned from Brain Neurology, some from Moral Psychology, some from Behavioral Economics and Behavioral Ethics.)[/size]
For example, in order to start the discussion, I would describe such an individual of good character this way:
Authentic, has transparent motives, compassionate, kind, gentle, empathic, generous, amiable, sincere, reliable, loving, friendly, courteous, considerate, etc., etc.
In contrast, how would you describe an individual who has a ‘bad character’? What traits would he or she possess? For example, brutal, cruel, mean, selfish, corrupt, has a double standard: one for self but different ones for others, vicious, predatory, sociopathic, pathetic, like that defeated former chief-executive, extremely Narcissistic, self-centered, dogmatic, extremely opportunistic, unable to admit a wrong or a mistake, vain, rigid-thinking, manipulative, dangerous, compulsive liar, exploitative, self-righteous, untrustworthy, etc., etc.
Please give us your views on the subject. And what are the implications for Moral Philosophy? Does every human being shift smoothly from one type to the other; or are some more stable and dependable? What made them that way? Is it more genes or up-bringing? Or is it the culture in which they were raised? Can we ever, as we evolve as a species, develop a world where we see mostly people of good character? What would it take? And would you prefer to live in “an ethical world”?

Speak up. Where do you stand?

2

The Golden Synthesis between character (virtue), conduct (duty), and consequences (teleology):

Turn the blue and red vices into “never” rules, and turn the yellow virtues into “always” rules, and pick whichever virtue in play in a situation is the greater virtue/rule when pivoting around the Golden Rule (treat self as other and vice versa), which is descriptive of the Virtuoso, or original Neighbor.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ … sp=sharing

3

A good character, once a frien, pledges faithfullness and love, may not be all that virtuous, but will stick by you through thick and thin, and never, ever let You downfall other characteristics do not even begin to come close.

4

A good friend would not rob you of the lessons you only learn at the bottom, but would not help you get there.

5

A faithful friend may not , yes, the only requirement is to be faithful, faithfully honest about it and keep the faith which does wonders to enable one to go on and live, to live thank You.

6

Faithfulness is trustworthiness, loyalty (not gossip), truthfulness or honesty, integrity across all situations/relationships, consistency, promise keeping (or not making promises), and so forth.

You can have friendship across social classes.

You don’t have to internalize the gaze of the dumbass :wink: Good show, don’t have time to watch whole vid but I’m sure it’s good: youtu.be/_yvexXePqZQ

7

But would a good friend be there at the bottom with him to kind of help balance that scale?

8

A good friend doesn’t wallow in the mud with you, but when you’re ready to ascend, is ready to get you unstuck.

9

_
One of good character respects all others… that doesn’t mean to condone them, but to sometimes leave them be.

…repercussions abounding.

10

A person of radical peace does not remain silent. Even their indirectness echoes off the mountains.

11

_
Is any one here, but me, actually sticking to the op?

12

looks around

yes

13

_
I’d say “No!”

14

I’d say yes. Twice.

15

_
You can say what you like.

16

Kind of like reaching out with a large branch to pull someone out of quicksand?

17

HOW TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG?

To have a good character is (morally) right.

To have a bad character is (morally) wrong.

And that is one good way to tell Right from Wrong.

Good characters are intensely honest. They don’t lie or cheat. They are caring, sharing, and cooperative people. They live ethically and morally. They get a high score in Morality. They are ready to be of service. They not only have good intentions but they follow through and put their good will into action.

Bad guys may be clever con-artists: they don’t mind misleading you. They are unfeeling, lack a capacity for empathy; they could murder or hold slaves, or work someone until he or she drops. It wouldn’t bother them at all!

18

Yes. That was what came to my mind.

19

Now that we are more attune to competently recognizing at an early stage someone with a bad character, the material on p.2 of this concise and precise reference becomes more-relevant: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/Ho … ianism.pdf
Its about the next stage of human evolution and how to get to it. After you’ve had a chance to read it over, let us know what you think about its concepts and ideas. Okay?

20

hmmmmm heh hm Here’s what it triggers.

Love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Luke 6:27-36.

Self=Other is the basics.

Self<Other requires getting the basics down & having good boundaries before it can launch into outdoing each other in love and putting the other first. Valorization - maintaining & multiplying.

So. Self<=>Other … unity in duplication (Hegel).

& by extension, us<=>them