Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ibshambat]

I am now addressing a behaviour so prevalent that many people take it for granted. Hang on, as this is not an easy argument to make.

The behaviour is as follows. People judge someone on what is in his character and hold him responsible for it. Meanwhile they deny him the right to change his character. Thus, once a sociopath always a sociopath; once a narcissist always a narcissist; and once an abuser always an abuser. This of course is completely irrational. If character is the person’s responsibility then it is up to him to change it; and if he cannot change his character then it is not his responsibility.

So we get green light for abusive attitudes and behaviour. The claim being made about some people is that they are bad and can only be bad. I know for a fact that this is incorrect. I went from someone whom most people saw as a bad person to someone whom most people see as a good one. I got there the way anyone gets anywhere: by putting my mind to it.

But according to some people this is impossible. Any attempt to improve oneself is seen as trying to be something you’re not. They have decided that they have you pegged for life. They have defined you. According to them you cannot be anything else.

This behaviour must be confronted. Once again, it is completely irrational. If someone’s character is his responsibility then it is his to change; and if it’s not then it’s not his responsibility.

Martin Luther King said that he dreamed of a world in which people are judged not on the colour of their skin but on the contents of their character. The question to ask is, Is the character inborn or is it a matter of choice? If it is inborn, then judging people on it is just as wrong as judging people on the colour of their skin. And if it is a choice, then, once again, it is up to them to do with it what they wish.

The basic question to ask here is this. Is character a choice? If it is, then it is up to the people to formulate it as they desire regardless of how people in their past see them. And they are not allowed to do so, then it is not a choice.

Instead we see people formulating their view of what they think to be someone’s character and deciding that that is all that they are and that is all that they can be. They think that that is the real you and anything else is trying to be something you’re not. So for example there was a situation where my former wife's ex was aggravating her and saying, “here is the real Mel.” I responded with, “I see the real Mel, and she is wonderful.” He decided that he knew her, and that she was bad and could only be bad. I did not share that view.

This behaviour, once again, is exceptionally prevalent. That makes all the greater reason to confront it. Many lives are lost to this kind of thing. People are kept in bad situations and bad self-view. They are prevented the right to grow, the right to improve and the right to pursue a better way of life.

We see a lot of this in personality psychology. This behaviour though is much older than personality psychology. It is very prevalent, for example, among Christian conservatives. These people would crucify you if they found in you character they don’t like. However Christian conservatives also believe in free will, and they believe in forgiveness of sins. If they see self-improvement, they recognize it.

So it is important to define the issues correctly. Is character a choice, or is it not a choice? If it is, then it’s up to the people to alter. And if it is not up to people to alter, then it is not a choice.

[Trokanmariel]

The ideology, that people's character can be the means by which they are judged can be extended to this paradigm; namely, that US Republican senators have the power to use their opinion that private healthcare is correct as a way to help the anti-matter and matter of their same opinion reach entry to the afterlife.

Why is this valuable? An answer, may be that the irony complex of the situation is worthwhile, but, then again, why?

Why is the irony complex valuable? Ostensibly, it is owing to the sociology perspective that American conservatives are the heart of mystery, the heart of obstacle, whereby obstacle and mystery denote the same index.

Is it tenable, the promotion of this ideology, of this situation and theme? Versions being what they are, versions here meaning the idea of scenario sex, aka scenario magic, aka a conundrum of promotion, the normal expectation - an ironic quality, since this version to do with Republican senators isn't the normal trajectory - with regards to this healthcare opinion/anti-matter of healthcare opinion/matter of healthcare opinion is identical of idea.

[betyek]

Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful perspective on character and personal growth. This discussion reminds me of a visual piece I recently encountered called “The Bet: A Reflection on Human Nature and the Meaning of Life” (see here). It explores similar questions: Are we defined by our nature, our choices, or something we can consciously change?

I believe that, just as you described, meaning and character are not fixed—they are shaped by our choices, our willingness to reflect, and our openness to growth. The right to redefine ourselves is fundamental to the human experience, and denying that possibility limits both individual potential and collective progress.

How we view character—whether as destiny or as a canvas for change—deeply affects not only our own lives, but also how we treat others. I’m grateful for spaces like this where we can reflect on these questions together.

Looking forward to hearing more thoughts from the community!

— betyek

[Pattern-chaser]

If character is the person’s responsibility then it is up to him to change it; and if he cannot change his character then it is not his responsibility.

On the face of it, this makes perfect sense, and no-one would disagree. But it seems to lack any allowance for humanity and human behaviour. There are some things about ourselves that we are capable of changing, and others that we are not. And yet we all (or most of us) see a need for individuals to take responsibility for our own actions, and that apparent contradiction is where things start to get complex, isn't it?

[LuckyR]

I get what the OP means, but in my experience, he's oversimplifying things too much in his quest to make his point. The reality is, alas, a lot more mundane than his piece makes it out to be.

Several things: first the "judging" that random citizens do routinely is in fact of low accuracy for numerous reasons (stereotyping, prejudice, ignorance, simple mistakes etc). But of all of the reasons for being inaccurate I'd probably complain least about the reason of "well, that's how he behaved last time". I mean why on Earth would someone you wronged in the past assume you're not going to do that in the future?

I totally agree that folks can change. Just about everyone has changed some aspect of their behavior. That's called maturation. What the OP is glossing over is the fact that in Human Psychology one negative experience with an individual is not negated by a subsequent positive experience with that individual. It takes many positive interactions to "make up" for a bad first impression. That's why mature folks try to make a good first impression.

Lastly, while we're in agreement that folks CAN change their behavior, the reality is that many, many do not. After all, the causes of the original behavior (crappy childhood, personality type, socioeconomic status, negative social environment etc) are likely still influencing the individual. So people learn through past experiences not to assume that they will, which is a good thing, since it more accurately predicts what happens than assuming folks will change. That's not the mistake. The mistake is not accepting that someone has changed after numerous, numerous examples of different behavior.

[Good_Egg]

while we're in agreement that folks CAN change their behavior, the reality is that many, many do not. After all, the causes of the original behavior (crappy childhood, personality type, socioeconomic status, negative social environment etc) are likely still influencing the individual. So people learn through past experiences not to assume that they will, which is a good thing, since it more accurately predicts what happens than assuming folks will change.

Good post, LuckyR.

The one bit I'd quibble with is where you use the word "causes" to describe what you later call "influences" on behaviour.

Within a "free will" paradigm, we envisage minds as making choices between potential courses of action. Experience and context and personality/character and habit may combine to both limit the range of potential actions that we perceive, and make some of those potential actions seem more enticing or appropriate than others. But we still have a choice.

And thus, within that paradigm, we are both responsible for our choices and not-responsible for our character (except to the extent that character is formed by previous actions).

Whereas, within a simple deterministic paradigm in which our genes or upbringing totally determine our actions, we have no responsibility. And complicating the mechanism does not introduce any.

Which I think is what the OP is getting at.

[LuckyR]

while we're in agreement that folks CAN change their behavior, the reality is that many, many do not. After all, the causes of the original behavior (crappy childhood, personality type, socioeconomic status, negative social environment etc) are likely still influencing the individual. So people learn through past experiences not to assume that they will, which is a good thing, since it more accurately predicts what happens than assuming folks will change.

Good post, LuckyR.

The one bit I'd quibble with is where you use the word "causes" to describe what you later call "influences" on behaviour.

Within a "free will" paradigm, we envisage minds as making choices between potential courses of action. Experience and context and personality/character and habit may combine to both limit the range of potential actions that we perceive, and make some of those potential actions seem more enticing or appropriate than others. But we still have a choice.

And thus, within that paradigm, we are both responsible for our choices and not-responsible for our character (except to the extent that character is formed by previous actions).

Whereas, within a simple deterministic paradigm in which our genes or upbringing totally determine our actions, we have no responsibility. And complicating the mechanism does not introduce any.

Which I think is what the OP is getting at.

I get what you're saying. What I meant by "causes" is the term folks use after the fact, which as you correctly point out is inaccurate as they are influences (I'm not a Determinist) .

[Pattern-chaser]

while we're in agreement that folks CAN change their behavior, the reality is that many, many do not. After all, the causes of the original behavior (crappy childhood, personality type, socioeconomic status, negative social environment etc) are likely still influencing the individual. So people learn through past experiences not to assume that they will, which is a good thing, since it more accurately predicts what happens than assuming folks will change.

Good post, LuckyR.

The one bit I'd quibble with is where you use the word "causes" to describe what you later call "influences" on behaviour.

Within a "free will" paradigm, we envisage minds as making choices between potential courses of action. Experience and context and personality/character and habit may combine to both limit the range of potential actions that we perceive, and make some of those potential actions seem more enticing or appropriate than others. But we still have a choice.

And thus, within that paradigm, we are both responsible for our choices and not-responsible for our character (except to the extent that character is formed by previous actions).

Whereas, within a simple deterministic paradigm in which our genes or upbringing totally determine our actions, we have no responsibility. And complicating the mechanism does not introduce any.

Which I think is what the OP is getting at.

I think there are choices ... and there are choices. You hint at it above. There are some easy ones, but let's ignore them. Then there are strong influences, that we can choose to adopt or ignore at will, but we'd prefer to stick to our 'instinctive' preference if we could, for comfort. And then we drift toward situations where we could exercise conscious choice, but it is hard for us to do, and many of us fail when we try. And finally, we end up at the other extreme, where we really have no choice at all. Maybe like in breathing?

So I think there are choices, and (in practice) there are things that aren't choices at all, even though we might assert they are, or could be. It's the "in practice" that is decisive here, I think. The real world often does not support our theoretical speculations, and maybe this is such a time?

[Good_Egg]

I think there are choices ... and there are choices. You hint at it above. There are some easy ones, but let's ignore them. Then there are strong influences, that we can choose to adopt or ignore at will, but we'd prefer to stick to our 'instinctive' preference if we could, for comfort. And then we drift toward situations where we could exercise conscious choice, but it is hard for us to do, and many of us fail when we try. And finally, we end up at the other extreme, where we really have no choice at all. Maybe like in breathing?

You're not a Jedi then. Wasn't it Yoda who said something like "do or do not - there is no try" ? ?

It is true that sometimes we have no choice. One can choose not to breathe for a few seconds, but sooner or later the body will override the mind and take the unchosen breath anyway.

And it's also true that it's hard to act on intentions that go against one's habits and conditioning.

Can one truly be said to try and fail, if what prevents is something within one's own mind ?

The distinction here is between failing to successfully act on an intention because the body or some other agent or physical reality prevents, and failing because the mind itself is divided.

And if the mind is divided, is not the part of your mind which opposes as much "you" as the part that proposes ? Is Yoda right ?

[Pattern-chaser]

I think there are choices ... and there are choices. You hint at it above. There are some easy ones, but let's ignore them. Then there are strong influences, that we can choose to adopt or ignore at will, but we'd prefer to stick to our 'instinctive' preference if we could, for comfort. And then we drift toward situations where we could exercise conscious choice, but it is hard for us to do, and many of us fail when we try. And finally, we end up at the other extreme, where we really have no choice at all. Maybe like in breathing?

You're not a Jedi then. Wasn't it Yoda who said something like "do or do not - there is no try" ? ?

It is true that sometimes we have no choice. One can choose not to breathe for a few seconds, but sooner or later the body will override the mind and take the unchosen breath anyway.

And it's also true that it's hard to act on intentions that go against one's habits and conditioning.

Can one truly be said to try and fail, if what prevents is something within one's own mind ?

The distinction here is between failing to successfully act on an intention because the body or some other agent or physical reality prevents, and failing because the mind itself is divided.

And if the mind is divided, is not the part of your mind which opposes as much "you" as the part that proposes ? Is Yoda right ?

Good thoughts; good post; good questions; good ideas. I only wish I had something — anything! — of value to offer in return.

May the Force be with you.