Talk:Moral character

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject:Moral Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to ethics and moral philosophy. You can help – read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles and then start editing! For more information, visit the project's discussion page and browse the portal.

"Plato and Aristotle defined good moral character as striking a mean between extremes of feeling and one's actions on that feeling."

This was the entire content of the article. I don't know enough about this topic to judge the validity of the above, so I've moved it out to make way for a fresh stub. Fabiform 05:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually Plato had nothing to do about it. His "surpasser" Aristotle did it all by himself. - Sigg3.net 18:05, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poor

this article is very poor; it reads like some kind sermon. In other words, very POV. I think it needs a complete re-write.

[edit] Needs a complete re-write

The article title must be renamed "character", rather than "moral character", as it implies that demonstrating 'character', which is ultimately a subjective assessment, will always be moral (ethical) in all situations. E.g. Oskar Schindler's lack of the moral qualities 'loyalty' (to the Reich) and 'honesty' saved hundreds of Jews from death. This was moral behaviour. Statements such as "Character is our Moral maturity and commitment to doing the right thing regardless of the personal cost" are ridiculous when you consider that ethical behaviour is situational; not based on a subjective judgement of a person's supposed moral and mental qualities.

I agree that the article is too POV and has the tone of a sermon rather than an informational encyclopedia article, but the term moral character doesn't refer to whether that person's character happens to be morally good or not but to the fact that this type of character relates to morality (as opposed to a fictional character or character in psychology). This article doesn't mention that people can have weak moral character or strong moral character, for instance. Also, your contention that ethical behavior is (entirely) situational is a matter of heated debate among moral philosophers (consider ethical subjectivism, cultural relativism, meta-ethical subjectivism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology, moral skepticism, ethical egoism, (divine) command ethics, and all the other schools of ethics).--NeantHumain 07:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)