Four Types of Character

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

The field of human psychology has been misguided in its massive reluctance to examine the moral and to generate investigations and make claims about what is the good life. Its avoidance has been out of its desire to be scientific, with the general sentiment being that only facts can be objective, whereas values are inherently subjective and thus not the proper domain of science.

In his book, Virtue, and Psychology (APA Books, 2005), Blaine Fowers enlists four character types from the combination of the two dimensions of moral duty and one’s personal inclinations. Moral duty refers to acting toward what is good, whereas the latter refers to the emotional inclination to act on one’s desires. The four kinds of character that emerge are as follows:

1. The Continent Character is one who has selfish, amoral, or immoral desires, but exhibits control over them in the service of acting morally.
2. The Incontinent Character knows what the right or virtuous thing is to do, but does not have the self-control to live by his morals.
3. The Vicious Character, in contrast, feels no conflict between inclinations and moral duty because he has no moral sense of the good. Such individuals simply act on their own selfish inclinations, as these are seen as what is valuable.
4. The Virtuous Character also feels no conflict between emotional inclinations and moral duty. Why? Because the virtuous character has trained his emotional system to be aligned with his moral inclinations.

It is important to note here that individuals will certainly not always be one or another character.

Share this:

Virtuous character

For many of us, the fundamental question of ethics is, “What should I do?” or “How should I act?” Ethics is supposed to provide us with “moral principles” or universal rules that tell us what to do.

Moral principles like these focus primarily on people’s actions and doings. We “apply” them by asking what these principles require of us in particular circumstances, e.g., when considering whether to lie or to commit suicide.

But are moral principles all that ethics consists of? Critics have rightly claimed that this emphasis on moral principles smacks of a thoughtless and slavish worship of rules, as if the moral life was a matter of scrupulously checking our every action against a table of do’s and don’ts. Fortunately, this obsession with principles and rules has been recently challenged by several ethicists who argue that the emphasis on principles ignores a fundamental component of ethics–virtue. These ethicists point our that by focusing on what people should do or how people should act, the “moral principles approach” neglects the more important issue–what people should be. In other words, the fundamental question of ethics is not “What should I do?” but “What kind of person should I be?” According to “virtue ethics”, there are certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should strive and which allow the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what we as human beings have the potential to become.

“Virtues” are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

How does a person develop virtues? Virtues are developed through learning and through practice. As the ancient philosopher Aristotle suggested, a person can improve his or her character by practicing self-discipline, while a good character can be corrupted by repeated self-indulgence.

Virtues are habits. That is, once they are acquired, they become characteristic of a person.