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:
- The Continent Character is one who has selfish, amoral, or immoral desires, but exhibits control over them in the service of acting morally.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
100 Words Everyday 