In Jtg1's conceptual analysis on "character," he defines and explains the word as "moral excellence and firmness." For someone to have character means that person will do what is good or virtuous, and will not deter from this. 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 or not to trust someone, who is said to lack character, with something important.
For example, suppose Archibald and Billy-jean are students and must work on a group assignment, which is an important part of their grade. The two of them have a choice of either dividing the work between them, with each taking one part, or working jointly on the entire assignment. The latter choice will take more time, which is undesirable, but the former choice requires the two to trust each other to fulfill their part of the work. Billy-jean does not know much about Archibald, but he is said to have character. If Billy-jean understands what is meant by "character," then she will be able to understand whether or not to trust him to fulfill his part of the work.
Yet there is one very large problem with this understanding of “character” and using it to measure a person’s trustworthiness. Defining character solely by “moral excellence and firmness” adequately works in a single culture society, where understanding what is meant by “character” is a universal understanding. When there is more than one culture in a single society, however, there is also no single universal understanding. Indeed, where multiple cultures overlap in the same society, multiple concepts of “character” can develop, even within this precise definition of “character.” In the following example, I will show how a person can be said to have character, and yet still be untrustworthy.
Suppose Archibald and Billy-jean are students in a college – an environment well known for the number of diverse cultures converging on a single locale. Both of them come from a different culture, with each culture possessing its own sense of morality and cultural norms. Within his own culture, Archibald is said to have character; that is, he displays moral excellence and firmness in regards to his own culture’s morality and cultural norms. Yet because Archibald’s culture is different from Billy-jean’s culture, Archibald would not be considered to have character in Billy-jean’s culture.
If Billy-jean is trying to measure Archibald’s trustworthiness, then there are primarily two groups of people she could speak to about if Archibald has character or not. She could ask her friends, who might know Archibald better than her. She could also ask Archibald’s friends, who would of course know Archibald better than herself. In each situation, the culture that they come from has a large impact on what they might say about Archibald and how they view him, which in turn affects what they would say about Archibald.
If Billy-jean asks her own friends, then what they might say about Archibald is likely representative of what Billy-jean’s culture in general would say about Archibald. This is because people usually befriend people with like-minded beliefs or people who belong to similar cultures. In this case, because Archibald’s culture is different from that of Billy-jean and her friends, her friends will tell her that Archibald does not have character. They will judge him by the standards of their own culture.
If Billy-jean asks Archibald’s friends if he has character, the result is likely to be very different. In the same way that Billy-jean’s friends are likely to be of the same culture as herself, Archibald’s friends are likely to be of the same culture as himself. Unlike in Billy-jean’s culture, within Archibald’s own culture, Archibald is said to have character after all. If Billy-jean asks Archibald’s friends if he has character, they will likely say he does. They, like Billy-jean’s friends, will judge him by the standards of their own culture.
For example: in Archibald’s culture, it is a virtue to take things easy in life. For people to have character in Archibald’s culture means, among other things, that they in turn will “take things easy”, that is, they will not work as hard or as strenuously as they might be able to, but rather stay calm and relaxed throughout. When such a person is part of a group assignment, that person will not work as hard, and this in turn will be reflected in that person’s grade. That person is much more likely to have a bad grade, because that person did not work as hard as someone else.
In Billy-jean’s culture, however, it is a virtue to work to the very best of her ability. For people to have character in Billy-jean’s culture means that they will work to the very best of their ability, that is, they will work as hard or as strenuously as they might be able to, likely becoming stressed in the process. When such a person is part of a group assignment, that person will work very hard, and this in turn will be reflected in that person’s grade. That person is much more likely to have a good grade because that person worked harder than someone else.
These two concepts of character are mutually exclusive. One cannot simultaneously “take things easy” – to not work as hard or as strenuously as one might be able to, but rather stay calm and relaxed throughout – and work to the best of one’s ability – to work as hard or as strenuously as one might be able to, likely becoming stressed in the process. For Archibald to have character in one of their cultures is to not have character in the other culture.
By this understanding of their culture’s representative notions of “character,” if Billy-jean wants to know if she can trust Archibald on the basis of character to do his part of their assignment, then who she asks will have a very large impact on whether she believes she can or not. If Billy-jean asks her friends if Archibald has character, they will say no, because as it was earlier mentioned, they will judge Archibald by the standards of their own culture.
Because of Archibald’s proclaimed lack of character, Billy-jean will come to the conclusion that Archibald is untrustworthy and she cannot trust him with his part of the assignment. She will thus opt for the more unfavorable option of the two working together on the whole assignment. Because Archibald will take things easy and Billy-jean wants a good grade, her mistrustfulness is merited.
Yet if she instead asks Archibald’s friends if he has character, she will come across a real dilemma: Archibald’s friends will tell her that he does indeed have character. According to Jtg1’s analysis, by being said to have character and understanding what is meant by character, Archibald would thus become a trustworthy figure. Billy-jean will thus opt for the more favoriable option of the two each working on their own parts of the assignment. This is a mistake.
In Archibald’s culture, it is a virtue to take things easy. He will not work as hard, and he will likely have a lower grade because of it. Because this is a group assignment, Billy-jean will also have a lower grade because of it. Billy-jean wanted a good grade, and trusted Archibald to do his part of their work well. She trusted him because he was said to have character, but she really should not have trusted him at all.
Thus in this example, one can see how Archibald simultaneously was said to have character but was also untrustworthy with something important to Billy-jean, that is, their grade on that assignment. Jtg1’s analysis of “character” focused on the two key components of “moral excellence and firmness” and how understanding that would allow a person to know whether or not they could trust someone. Yet in the face of this example, one can see there is a problem with Jtg1’s analysis: either the definition of what “character” is must be wrong, or at least insufficient, or character is simply not as good of a means of establishing trustworthiness as he believes.
If the definition he provides is wrong, this would account for why there can be a misunderstanding about character that led to Billy-jean trusting Archibald when she should not have. If it is simply insufficient, then the definition he provides must be amended to take into account such situations as this. If “character” in general is simply a bad means of establishing trustworthiness, then his definition may not be the wrong one. It may be that because of cultural connotations, the word itself simply does not ensure trustworthiness. If that is the case, then as long as one lives within a multicultural society, when it comes to trusting people, one may as well disregard the concept of character and seek out other alternatives to base trust on.
No comments:
Post a Comment