Counterexample, New

In Jtg1’s Conceptual Analysis on “character,” he defines and explains the word as “moral excellence and firmness. He also explains the apparent discrepancy in definitions of character from culture to culture because cultures tend to define morality – whether by this, they mean what is good or evil, or what is virtue and what is vice – in different ways. By understanding what is meant by character, he says others will be able to understand whether to trust someone who is said to lack character or not with something important.

Yet there are exceptions to this. The “melting pot” society is most likely to experience such an exception, where multiple cultures overlap in the same area of living, or even blend cultures together. Each culture likely has its own definition of morality – the goods or evil, or the virtues and vices – and so each is rightfully within their own bounds to say whether a person has character or not. The one who is said to have character in one culture may have a different morality, or possibly even oppose the morality of one who is said to have character in another culture.

For example, in one culture, if it is a virtue to let a person stand on their own, or even face hardship so they can grow from said hardship, then going to him or her for help with something important may prove disastrous. If that person is true to his or her virtues, as the person must be because of the “firmness” of character, then the person may act in some negative manner: inhibiting, obstructing, or perhaps even destroying what the something important that he or she was trusted with.

In a melting pot society, however, the person who did the trusting may have based their trust in the person, who is said to have character, on his or her own culture’s concept of character, in which it could be a virtue to help those who ask for help. The definition of character does not change between them; it is still “moral excellence and firmness.” The one who is said to have character does indeed have character, but he cannot be trusted with something important.