1

What are the virtues or character traits that you believe are most important for a morally
good person to have in today's world? Why are these important? How would you go about
cultivating this kind of character?

Syed Ali Moiz

Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, Institute of Business Administration

Class 5474, History of Ideas 1

Professor Irfan Muhammad

December 7, 2021
 2

Introduction

In this essay, I attempt to explore the importance of ethics in cultivating a morally upright

character. I aim to do this by scrutinizing the importance of virtue from a historical (zoomed-out)

perspective and a psychological (individualized) perspective. I also emphasize the value of

individual responsibility and the necessity to shrug off tempting ideas of nihilism, hedonism, and

subjectivity when faced with the issue of acting virtuously. I will be bolstering my ideas by

taking support from Aristotle's virtue ethics and some groundbreaking research conducted by

psychologists and neuroscientists.

What Does It Mean to Be Morally Good?

Before delving into the discussion of what virtues are most important, it is pertinent to

touch upon the importance of morality. The human ability to distinguish between what is right or

wrong, or what is moral or immoral, involves a higher-order reasoning ability. This reasoning

depends on how individuals view themselves as moral agents; whether or not they are free to

exercise their ability to act, and how they expect others to perceive their actions. Their

conscience also impacts their reasoning and influences them to act in a particular manner.

Therefore, not only do their senses intervene, but their instincts also play a key role in shaping

their behavior. In other words, knowledge gained from lived experiences and through sensory

input is not the sole determining factor that affects behavior. Consequently, since an individual’s

behavior is shaped both by internal variables and through the influence of social norms and

external factors, it is reasonable to assume that morality appears in different forms for different
 3

people. Therefore, what is a virtuous act for one person (or a group of people) may appear

immoral or wrong to others. This is the stance of ethical relativism, which is the opposite of

ethical absolutism, and states that morality is not absolute and permanent, but dynamic and

relative. (Jalsenjak,2019)

Is Ethics Meaningless?

Since each individual has distinct experiences and is influenced and shaped by a myriad

of varying factors, it might be stated that morality is relative. However, the dynamic nature of

morality does not necessarily mean that ethical considerations are arbitrary and meaningless.

Even though morality is not absolute or completely fixed, and each individual’s response to

ethical dilemmas varies uniquely, there still is room for the growth and betterment of one’s

character. An individual can reflect upon their past actions and behaviors they might consider

errors or mistakes, and then work towards improving their moral weaknesses. It is also possible

to view the problem of morality from a zoomed-out, historical perspective that encompasses the

human race. For example, one could look at the horrors of the second world war, the atrocities

committed in the Soviet Union, or the brutality of Chairman Mao’s regime. Then, most

importantly, one must resist the urge to dismiss the people committing obscene and unspeakable

atrocities as insane, dissimilar, or inhumane. One must accept that there is a seed of evil within

each human, and this capacity for wrongdoing should be kept in check so that even extreme

situations do not turn one into a corrupt being. "The only great danger that exists is man

himself." (Jung, 1959)

 4

Are All Ethical Foundations Shaky?

The nuanced approach to morality that states that moral issues have elements of both

rigidity and variance are not mere conjecture. There is a fixed framework within which morality

operates dynamically and flexibly. To illustrate this point, and to showcase a common

foundation of morality that is present not only in humans but also in other mammals, it is wise to

approach the problem empirically. To this end, I will utilize the work of experts such as Swiss

psychologist Jean Piaget and American neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp. Piaget argued that games

can tell us a lot about morality since they involve both competitive and cooperative play. Piaget

suggested that children go through two types of moral thinking: Heteronomous and Autonomous.

The former was related to a slavish adherence to rules and a fear of punishment, as well as

viewing rules as fixed or absolute. While the latter stage dealt with a more flexible understanding

of morality that involved an emphasis on intentions and not outcomes. (Mcleod, 1970) However,

even though this indicates a changing stage-based approach to morality, Piaget also believed that

a transcendental or meta-narrative can be extracted from children's interaction with rules and

play behavior. This meant that the rules of cooperation and competition that made the game ‘fun’

or that spurred the children to keep playing had common or essential elements in every game the

children would play. Therefore, if one was to extract these common elements or rules from the

cooperative and competitive framework, a morality emerges that is appropriate for the meta-

game of life. (Piaget, 2013) Furthermore, this commonality of rules is not only generalizable to

humans but can also be seen in other mammals such as rats and monkeys. (Pellis, 2006) This

similarity between animals and humans for play is particularly evident in play fighting or rough

and tumble play. (Panksepp, 2004)

 5

What Virtues Are Most Important?

Thus far, this essay has emphasized two factors: The importance of working on one’s

character traits; and the necessity to dismiss nihilistic and counterproductive arguments against

the meaningfulness of human behavior. We have established that working on one’s character

traits is necessary to ward off the corrupt external influences that might sway the individual

towards immorality. Also, dealing with the temptation to label all behavior as subjective or

arbitrary has enabled us to focus our discussion on virtue. Since both our actions and our inaction

matter, and we have an opportunity to work on improving our character, the next logical step is

to discuss which virtues would be the most useful to cultivate for the postmodern individual. In

light of our previous discussion about the tragedies of the 20th century, it is safe to say that one of

the virtues that could have reduced the propagation of violence and misery was tolerance. During

the transformation of seemingly innocent ‘common’ people into bloodthirsty monsters who were

capable of committing insane acts of violence, the virtue of being tolerant towards the

differences in religious beliefs, ethnicity, and gender was nowhere to be seen. Secondly, the

virtue of courage in the face of fear or difficult circumstances is also a necessary weapon in the

contemporary person’s arsenal.

Why Tolerance and Courage?

The postmodern era is largely characterized by a tendency to look towards many correct

answers rather than following a strict code of conduct. This can be seen in popular activist
 6

movements such as the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement and the ‘LGBTQ+’ movement. Such

campaigns are characterized by elements of inclusivity, diversity, and integration. In this essay, I

will not provide a value judgment on the validity of these movements or their elements.

However, it is worth noting that lacking tolerance towards people with opposing views, sexual

orientations, religious beliefs, political ideologies, gender differences, or ethnic distinctions can

lead to conflict with the zeitgeist of the contemporary era. However, this must also mean that one

must have the courage to take a stand for what one believes to be moral and truthful. To this end,

courage is absolutely essential for an individual to not be swayed by peer pressure or by the

popular ideology surrounding them. It is necessary to courageously speak one’s mind since it can

lead to one of two things. Firstly, it might result in the attainment of knowledge and humility if

one’s arguments are logically inconsistent and are refuted by the popular ideas of the majority.

Secondly, it might lead to the necessary conflict that is required to curb the resentment or

bitterness a majority group is feeling towards the minority. In this situation, the minority might

be people who still believe in religious doctrines and practice all the teachings according to their

religious dogma. In this manner, courage helps protect the minorities against the intolerant and

propagates ideas of harmony and peace by engaging in conflict when the situation hasn’t become

as dire as it had become in Nazi Germany during the second world war.

How To Cultivate a Virtuous Character?

Aristotle argues that one must concern himself with being a good person, rather than

focusing on micromanaging specific actions. This means that one's character should be a

reflection of a good or morally upright image, and virtuous actions should be habitual for one.
 7

Since the construction of virtuous acts, as habits take time and patience, Aristotle's idea to

develop a personality does not appear to be immediately gratifying. However, his ideas hold

great merit when one thinks about their validity in terms of severity and moderation. Aristotle

believes that vices or immoral actions lie at the extremes of the moral continuum or spectrum.

For example, one can be virtuous by being courageous, which is in the middle of the two

extremes of cowardice (too little courage) and viciousness (too much courage, that is

unregulated). Lastly, Aristotle talks about cultivating this virtuous character by setting up a

standard for one to be in the habit of being ‘good’ and to avoid immoral acts. To help us in this

endeavor, Aristotle believes that the context-dependent nature of virtue requires real friends that

will help one actualize their potential. (Velasquez, 2014)

Conclusion

Aristotle’s ideas show us that one can be ‘good’ by staying attuned to their moral

compass to see that they are living in moderation, and not too close to the extremes. I have used

these ideas to emphasize the importance of moral behavior and to display the responsibility each

individual holds to be the best version of themselves. I have outlined the ideas of important

thinkers and attempted to tie them together clearly and elaborately. However, that is not to say

that I have succeeded in coming up with an ultimate solution to the problem of morality. The

necessity of dismissing nihilistic arguments also depends upon my assumption that one ought to

live a life that fulfills their potential. This might not be the case in actuality for every person.

Furthermore, I may have missed the balance when talking about the role of objectivity and

subjectivity by overemphasizing commonalities and foundational truths to cooperative and

 8

competitive behavior. Therefore, I believe the argument that there are multiple truths and that

subjectivity accounts for a majority of the situation is an important one, and it can be leveled

against the thesis of my essay.

 9

References

Jalsenjak B. (2019) Ethical Absolutism V Ethical Relativism. In: Idowu S., Schmidpeter R., Capaldi N., Zu L.,
Del Baldo M., Abreu R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02006-4_116-1

Jung, C. G. (1959). We are the evil interview with Carl Jung. Face to Face. Retrieved 2021, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wop91_Gvwos&t=32s.

Mcleod, S. (1970, January 1). Piaget's theory of moral development. Piaget's Theory of Moral Development | Simply
Psychology. Retrieved December 7, 2021, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget-moral.html.

Piaget, J. (2013). The moral judgment of the child. Routledge.

Pellis, S., & Pellis, V. (2006-01-26). Play and the Development of Social Engagement: A Comparative
Perspective. In The Development of Social Engagement: Neurobiological Perspectives. : Oxford University Press.
Retrieved 7 Dec. 2021, from
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168716.001.0001/acprof-
9780195168716-chapter-9.

Panksepp, J. (2004). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and Animal Emotions. Oxford University
Press.

Velasquez, M. G. (2014). Philosophy: A text with readings. Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.