Daniel Little — What is the role of character in action?

I've been seriously interested in the question of character since being invited to contribute to a volume on the subject a few years ago. That volume, Questions of Character, has now appeared in print, and it is an excellent and engaging contribution. Iskra Fileva was the director of the project and is the editor of the volume, and she did an excellent job in selecting topics and authors. She also wrote an introduction to the volume and introductions to all five parts of the collection. It would be possible to look at Fileva's introductions collectively as a very short book on character by themselves.

So what is "character"? To start, it is a concept of the actor that draws our attention to enduring characteristics of moral and practical propensities, rather than focusing on the moment of choice and the criteria recommended by the ethicist on the basis of which to make choices. Second, it is an idea largely associated with the "virtue" ethics of Aristotle. The other large traditions in the history of ethics -- utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, or consequentialist and deontological theories -- have relatively little to say about character, focusing instead on action, rules, and moral reasoning. And third, it is distinguished from other moral ideas by its close affinity to psychology as well as philosophy. It has to do with the explanation of the behavior of ordinary people, not just philosophical ideas about how people ought to behave.

This is a fundamentally important question for anyone interested in formulating a theory of the actor. To hold that human beings sometimes have "character" is to say that they have enduring features of agency that sometimes drive their actions in ways that override the immediate calculation of costs and benefits, or the immediate satisfaction of preferences. For example, a person might have the virtues of honesty, courage, or fidelity -- leading him or her to tell the truth, resist adversity, or keep commitments and promises, even when there is an advantage to be gained by doing the contrary. Or conceivably a person might have vices -- dishonesty, cruelty, egotism -- that lead him or her to act accordingly -- sometimes against personal advantage....

Understanding Society
What is the role of character in action?
Daniel Little | Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Professor of Philosophy at UM-Dearborn and Professor of Sociology at UM-Ann Arbor

David Brendel — How Philosophy Makes You a Better Leader

The goal of most executive coaching and leadership development is behavior change—help the individual identify and change the behaviors that are getting in the way of, and reinforce the behaviors associated with, effective leadership. But what about the beliefs and values that drive behavior? 

The benefits of introspection and reflection on one’s own character and beliefs receive less attention in a typical coaching session than the benefits of behavior change. Perhaps this is not surprising in our fast-paced and technology-driven business world, where there is little time to stop and think, and where people want (and are paying for) immediate outcomes. Despite growing recognition of the benefits of “mindfulness” activities (such as yoga and meditation) and an introverted style, self-reflection on philosophical issues—such as values, character virtues, and wisdom—is relatively neglected. Executive coaching and leadership development programs rarely include much, if anything, about the power of clarifying one’s philosophical world-view. But there is mounting evidence that they should. 

Neuroscience research on self-reflection supports this notion.…

How reflection makes you a better person.

"the life which is unexamined is not worth living." Socrates, in Plato's Apology, 38a

Harvard Business Review — HBR Blog Network
How Philosophy Makes You a Better Leader
David Brendel

Chris Dillow — Building Character

The fact that we are discussing this itself shows the depth of the problem. Aristotle decided this issue in the Nichomachean Ethics, summarizing the classical education of Aristotle's day. It's the staple of virtue ethics based on the progressive unfolding of excellence (Ancient Greek: ἀρετή). 

Virtue ethics was not only the key classical teaching about development in the West but also in China and India, and judging from what we know of tribal cultures, there as well. 

In tribal cultures the hero is the great distributor rather than the great accumulator. Recall the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where the shaykh says to Lawrence, "I am a river unto my people," and the tribe cheers wildly.

Virtue ethics and deontological (rule-based) ethics overlap in many cases, since cultural institutions make arrangements though rules, customs, and conventions for education based on building character. 

Since the Golden Rule (reciprocity) is the most predominant deontological principle historically, the overlap with virtue ethics should be evident. Human beings are social animals. Hence, reciprocity, fairness and justice are key elements in character. All parents — or almost all parents anyway — teach their children sharing as part of the socialization process.

Consequentialism was considered to follow from developing excellence since a person of character would act in accord with the good of all and not chiefly out of self-interest. However, some versions of consequentialism are based on pursuit of self-interest. Classical authors like Aristotle addressed and rejected such arguments, showing why the pursuit of fame, fortune, power or pleasure cannot be considered the summum bonum.

BTW, without understanding this debate over approaches to ethics it is difficult to critique the contemporary assumption of utility maximization based on so-called rationality fully. It has been dismissed by the wise for ages as puerile and leading to bad character.

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”
― John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Stumbling and Mumbling
Building Character
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle

Daniel Little — Epochs and the social actor

It was suggested in an earlier post that important aspects of an individual's mental furniture are influenced by the concrete historical and social circumstances in which he or she is raised (link). Let's try to get a little more specific about this idea. How does historical context influence the behavior of the individuals who come to adulthood during its scope?

There are several kinds of practical cognitive features that seem to be historically conditioned. By "practical cognition" I mean the processes through which actors conceptualize their social environments, make sense of the activities going on around them, process their own desires and goals, and set out with a plan or strategy of action.

I can think of at least four largely independent features of social and practical cognition that seem to be importantly dependent on the social and historical context in which the individual develops from childhood to adulthood: social frameworks of interpretation; social norms; practices and habits; and enduring features of character. Let's look at each of these in turn.

Understanding Society
Epochs and the social actor
Daniel Little | Chancellor, University of Michigan at Dearborn

Daniel Little — Character and authenticity

When we judge that a person has acted on the basis of character in a given situation, we are implying a judgment about his or her inner constitution, and we are judging that the action derived "authentically" from the individual's underlying traits. Character and authenticity go hand in hand. 

So what is "authenticity" when it comes to action? It seems to come down to this. When we talk about authenticity, we are presupposing that a person has a real, though unobservable, inner nature, and we are asserting that he/she acts authentically when actions derive from or reflect that inner nature. This is a kind of moral psychological realism: we work on the assumption that there are real inner features of personality and character that influence (portions of) the individual's behavior.

Understanding Society
Character and authenticity
Daniel Little | Chancellor, University of Michigan at Dearborn

Is the representative agent rationally pursuing maximum utility acting authentically as a person of character, or does it matter wrt homo economicus? What about human beings as social and political animals?