Lack Of Character?

image: Stanford prison theatre experiment John Doris argues inward Lack of Character: Personality together with Moral Behavior that th...

image: Stanford prison theatre experiment

John Doris argues inward Lack of Character: Personality together with Moral Behavior that the basic theory of activeness associated amongst virtue ethics together with the theory of moral graphic symbol is most probable incorrect. The graphic symbol theory maintains that individuals direct hold stable traits that Pb them to bear similarly inward a arrive at of relevant but differing circumstances. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 individual amongst the traits of honesty or pity volition bear truthfully or benevolently inward a arrive at of circumstances, when it is slow to produce thence together with when it is to a greater extent than difficult.

Situationism is the competing see that maintains that people's actions are to a greater extent than sensitive to features of the province of affairs of activeness than to enduring underlying traits. Doris largely endorses situationism -- for example, he cites experiments showing that subjects brand dissimilar choices when confronted amongst a province of affairs of a demand for aid past times roughly other person, depending on whether or non the discipline of late constitute a small-scale amount of money. Apparently situations that cause a "good mood" brand a large divergence inward benevolent behavior. Rachana Kamtekar does a expert undertaking of explaining situationism every bit presented past times moral philosophers such every bit Gilbert Harman; link. Kamtekar summarizes situationism inward these terms:

Situationist social psychologists tell us that data almost people’s distinctive graphic symbol traits, opinions, attitudes, values, or past times behaviour is non every bit useful for determining what they volition produce every bit is data almost the details of their situations. (458)

Doris's declaration is almost solely grounded on the findings of experimental psychology drawn from a number of experiments designed to discover how people volition bear when faced amongst a special province of affairs involving the wellbeing of others. Particularly good known are the Milgram experiment together with the Stanford prison theatre experiment performed past times Philip Zimbardo together with colleagues, which Doris discusses extensively; but at that spot are many others amongst similar results that direct hold been performed inside social psychology every bit well.

It isn't Doris's see that at that spot are no personality traits at all, but rather that they are small-scale together with context-specific inward contrast to the full general graphic symbol traits cited inward the literature of virtue ethics. "I let for the possibility of temporally stable, situation-particular, 'local' traits that are associated amongst of import private differences inward behavior" (25). In particular, he takes number amongst the "globalism" of many theories of moral virtues together with character. Those theories typically brand iii of import assumptions almost the virtues of graphic symbol that Doris finds to last contradicted past times the prove of empirical inquiry inward psychology:

1. Consistency. Character together with personality traits are reliably manifested inward trait-relevant behaviour across a multifariousness of trait-relevant eliciting conditions...
2. Stability. Character together with personality traits are reliably manifested inward trait-relevant behaviors over iterated trials of similar trait-relevant eliciting conditions.
3. Evaluative integration. In a given graphic symbol or personality the occurrence of a trait amongst a special evaluative valence is probabilistically related to the occurrence of other traits amongst similar evaluative valences. (23)

He concludes that these iii features are non supported past times the evidence:

Systematic observation typically fails to expose the behavioral patterns expected past times globalism; globalist conceptions of personality are empirically inadequate. (23)

There are several things almost Doris's approach that I like. His insistence that moral philosophy needs to last attentive to the findings of empirical psychological inquiry is compelling. His aid inward treating the philosophical theories he challenges inward thoughtful special is appealing.

What Doris doesn't furnish is whatsoever sort of theory of the thespian of his own. He doesn't favor the thought that actors possess graphic symbol traits; but nosotros are left inward the nighttime almost how he thinks our actions genuinely proceed. Is it a shape of calculation? Is it the outcome of intuition together with snap judgment (along the lines of Daniel Kahneman's arguments inward Thinking, Fast together with Slow)? Doris doesn't offering an alternative theory of how the thespian processes a province of affairs together with arrives at an action. And inward fact, it's somewhat hard to reckon how nosotros would characterize whatsoever human behaviour without recourse to something similar graphic symbol traits together with dispositions. Is every 2d a novel occasion for spontaneous alternative or rational calculation? Is activeness at a 2d only the outcome of unconscious prior stimulation together with a piffling combat of noesis almost the electrical flow situation?

Doris discusses a possible solution to this worry, the theory of "social cognitivism" (76 ff.).

[Social cognitivists] empathise behaviour every bit a component division of each person's "cognitive-affective personality system": the scheme of beliefs, feelings, goals, competencies, together with strategies that is supposed to back upwards "stable together with distinctive patterns of intraindividual variability inward behavior". (77)

I don't know whether the social cognitivists (e.g. Walter Mischel together with Yuichi Shoda) succeed inward offering a compelling empirical instance for their view; but at to the lowest degree it provides a somewhat developed theory of the actor. In whatsoever case, it is non a framework that Doris endorses. And that seems to larn out his line of piece of job organization human relationship amongst a large hole inward the middle: nosotros would similar to direct hold an response to the question, how do actors procedure the situations they run into together with brand it at actions to perform? What is the theory of the thespian that is most plausible given a commitment to situationalism?

Here is Rachana Kamtekar's most key objection to the kinds of arguments offered past times Doris together with others:

It should past times instantly last clear that the experiments which find graphic symbol traits to correlate poorly amongst behaviour rely on a real special excogitation of a graphic symbol trait: every bit an isolable together with nonrational disposition to manifest a given stereotypical behaviour that differs from the behaviour of others together with is fairly province of affairs insensitive. (477)

In fact, Kamtekar suggests that situationism inward the extreme is incompatible amongst almost every shape of moral or practical reasoning:

Perhaps, if situationism is true, together with then the response to the practical inquiry “what tin forcefulness out I produce to direct hold accuse of my situation?”is“nothing”— the features of situations that decide behaviour are thence subtle together with surprising that no ordinary rational strategies could enable us to last masters of our situations. But such pessimism is premature, together with if it were e'er to locomote warranted, together with then it is non only virtue ethics together with the notion of graphic symbol that nosotros would direct hold to jettison, but the might of practical reasoning. (491)

Pure situationism seems to run deeply opposite to our ordinary, commonsense understandings of how together with why people bear every bit they do. Doris doesn't direct hold every bit good much regard for commonsense when it comes to agreement behavior, though he does address the topic. But if nosotros intend almost the people we've observed most closely inward professional person contexts, personal life, together with politics, it seems hard to avoid the sober determination that these individuals produce indeed direct hold "character", for amend or worse, together with that their characters differ. This 1 tin forcefulness out last counted on to deflect responsibleness for bad outcomes inward his or her division; that 1 is solidly committed to his spouse; together with that 1 is forever expedient inward appealing for votes. People differ inward these ways inward our ordinary experience; thence it is hard to discover the experiments of Milgram or Zimbardo sufficient to erase our reliance on the thought of persistent graphic symbol traits inward ordinary people. (Could nosotros blueprint experiments that assay to evaluate characteristics similar "avoids responsibility," "honors familial commitments," "acts out of devotion to principle"?)