Does Moral Character Matter? It Depends

×

Expand

Image: ChrisGorgio - Getty Images

Devil in a business suit

Our society lauds people who display what we call “good moral character.” From preachers to business leaders to politicians to parents, we hear folks refer to virtues like “integrity” and “honesty” and “kindness” as if these are stable attributes imprinted on the human psyche like etchings on a coin. Inversely, we assert that some people are deeply flawed due to “poor moral character,” meaning they will always act in their self-interest and others be damned.

The assumption here is that character is a largely stable aspect of an individual’s personality, one shaped during childhood that typically endures over the course of their lifetime. As such, this trait is regarded as a key foundation of the self, one that determines whether one is a good or bad person. Ostensibly, it provides a stable moral compass guiding our decisions, for better or worse. However, according to some research, this just isn’t so.

In fact, when behavioral scientists examine how people make moral decisions, the impact of character appears far less potent and consistent than we suppose. Translation? Much of the behavior, both good and ill, that we attribute to a person’s character is, in fact, shaped more by how they respond to certain circumstances and exigencies. Philosophers call it “situational ethics.”

The situational factors that can override one’s moral GPS include the predicted outcomes or rewards that may result from one’s choices, as well as social influences like peer pressure, conformity and tribalism. For example, someone who would otherwise be labeled a person of “upstanding character” may choose to act reprehensibly when presented with a potential reward that seems particularly attractive (a monetary windfall, sexual gratification, popularity, political power, etc.). This can occur even among some who, in most circumstances, would choose to do “the right thing.” In these instances, the perceived pay-off — not character, values or virtues — becomes the decisive factor.

High-Minded Moments

Inversely, there are people widely viewed as low lifes who, on occasion, decide to act in a virtuous manner—essentially in a way we would consider out of character for them. Usually, it’s not that they suddenly awaken to the wickedness of their ways, but rather, they encounter a situation where a high-minded choice is more persuasive. For example, a lifelong narcissist may choose to endanger their own life to save that of another. Or a chronic liar could elect to tell the truth for someone else’s benefit, even though doing so may undermine their self-interest. In such scenarios, there is no apparent positive reward to be gained, so something else is at work—what exactly, we’re not entirely sure. Perhaps there are situations for each of us that are so morally weighty that they override the external influences that encourage a less commendable approach.

As a sidebar, this research does not make an argument for “the devil made me do it.” Some assign culpability for their bad behavior to character deficits they claim hold sway over their better judgment. The research suggests otherwise. Rather than pleading, “I couldn’t help myself because I’m a flawed human being” (i.e., character deficits), situational ethics suggest we should acknowledge, “I made a bad choice, and the responsibility rests with me.”

In our haste to assign people to the tidy categories of virtuous or reprehensible moral character, we overlook the fact that many of us will deviate from either definition if the situation we encounter is sufficiently compelling. Which suggests that, for most folks, it’s not a question of good or bad character, but of good or bad decisions.

Good moral character, then, is not so much something we possess. Rather, it is something we create and inhabit through the choices we make day by day.

For more, visit philipchard.com.