Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 89–104 | Cite as

Character, Common-Sense, and Expertise

  • Jonathan WebberEmail author
Article

Abstract

Gilbert Harman has argued that the common-sense characterological psychology employed in virtue ethics is rooted not in unbiased observation of close acquaintances, but rather in the ‘fundamental attribution error’. If this is right, then philosophers cannot rely on their intuitions for insight into characterological psychology, and it might even be that there is no such thing as character. This supports the idea, urged by John Doris and Stephen Stich, that we should rely exclusively on experimental psychology for our explanations of behaviour. The purported ‘fundamental attribution error’ cannot play the explanatory role required of it, however, and anyway there is no experimental evidence that we make such an error. It is true that trait-attribution often goes wrong, but this is best explained by a set of difficulties that beset the explanation of other people’s behaviour, difficulties that become less acute the better we know the agent. This explanation allows that we can gain genuine insight into character on the basis of our intuitions, though claims about the actual distribution of particular traits and the correlations between them must be based on more objective data.

Key words

character traits correspondence bias fundamental attribution error intuition methodology situationism situationalism social psychology virtue ethics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited greatly from discussion at the University of Trieste. I am grateful to Marina Sbisà for organising that event. I am also grateful for very helpful comments from two anonymous referees for this journal.

References

  1. Athanassoulis N (2000) Response to Harman: virtue ethics and character traits. Proc Aristot Soc 100(2):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkin RM, Duval S (1975) Focus of attention and causal attributions of actors and observers. J Exp Soc Psychol 11:427–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doris J (1998) Persons, situations, and virtue ethics. Noûs 32(4):504–530Google Scholar
  4. Doris J (2002) Lack of character: personality and moral behaviour. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Doris J, Stich S (2005) As a matter of fact: empirical perspectives on ethics. In: Jackson F, Smith M (eds) The Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Gilbert DT, Malone PS (1995) The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull 117(1):21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldie P (2000) The emotions: a philosophical exploration. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Goldie P (2004) On personality. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  9. Harman G (1999) Moral philosophy meets social psychology: virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proc Aristot Soc 99(3):315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harman G (2000) The nonexistence of character traits. Proc Aristot Soc 100(2):223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones EE, Harris VA (1967) The attribution of attitudes. J Exp Soc Psychol 3(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamtekar R (2004) Situationism and virtue ethics on the content of our character. Ethics 114(3):458–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kupperman J (1991) Character. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. McArthur LZ, Post DL (1977) Figural emphasis and person perception. J Exp Soc Psychol 13(6):520–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority: an experimental view. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Nussbaum MC (1999) Virtue ethics: a misleading category? J Ethics 3(3):163–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ross L (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In: Berkowitz L (ed), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 10. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Ross L, Nisbett R (1991) The person and the situation: perspectives of social psychology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Sabini J, Silver M (2005) Lack of character? Situationism critiqued. Ethics 115(3):535–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taylor SE, Fiske ST (1975) Point-of-view and perceptions of causality. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(3):439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Trianosky GV (1997) What is virtue ethics all about? In: Statman D (ed) Virtue ethics: a critical reader. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  22. Webber J (2006) Virtue, character and situation. J Moral Philos 3(2):195–216Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations