A theory about virtuous character...

Hey there Snow Report supporter! This is another special issue just for paid subscribers. Thank you SO much for supporting my work! I’ve been working on this from the mysterious Koya-San mountain in Japan (and on the train-train-train-bus-bus-bus journey to and from it), where my main squeeze and I stayed with some righteous monks in the freezing cold.

Strength of character. What does that mean to have it? I’ve been thinking about this question a lot lately, and consequently have done what my nerdy self does best: Read lots of historical and scientific documents, and make spreadsheets about them.

Between Aristotle, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, Hindu and Muslim and Jewish and Christian teachings, and positive psychology, pretty much all humans who’ve engaged in “meta thinking” about what it means to be a good person have made lists of virtues that are universally good. Things like Love, Kindness, and Integrity, for example. When we say a person has “character,” what we usually mean is they have “good character,” and by that we mean that they tend to live their lives around virtuous traits that everyone deems as morally good.

What are those traits? A group of scientists broke down every universally-agreed-on morally good virtue (from history and religion and psychology) into a list and put them in an 801 page textbook that I decided to read when I should have been relaxing and enjoying the gorgeous scenery of rural Japan:

Anything that isn’t in this list of Virtues is either a synonym for these things (e.g. Persistence is synonymous with Perseverance, in this case), or is a character trait that is NOT universally agreed on as good. (E.g. Obedience. Obedience is not good if you are being obedient to Hitler, but it is probably good if you are being obedient to a reasonable law that keeps your neighborhood safe, like not drunk driving.)

And even the good virtues are only virtues when, as Aristotle (and many others) put it, they sit between two vices. For example, Courage with a capital C (morally good) sits in the middle of Cowardice (deficiency of courage, not morally good) and Recklessness (excess of courage, not morally good). If you read my big post on Intellectual Humility you saw this one:

Anyway, the long story short, dear Snow Report reader, is I’m working on a theory.

The theory is that any character trait, pure Virtue or not, only becomes morally good when it is modulated by two Virtues: Humanity and Wisdom—in all of their facets.

In other words, Courage without Humanity (love, kindness, social intelligence) is Courage for no morally good reason. And Courage without Wisdom (considering all perspectives, being curious, learning all you can about the situation so you act with creativity and Intellectual Humility) is potentially Reckless. It’s dumb to charge the enemy line if you haven’t thought things through, and it’s dumb to run away from the fight if it will leave helpless people vulnerable.

I think Intellectual Humility in particular is a key ingredient to this equation, because sometimes we conflate Wisdom with having learned everything and being experienced. But that’s potentially just “cognitive entrenchment.” To be truly wise, we have to be willing to revise our viewpoint in light of new information.

That’s how we become truly virtuous people.

I’m not sure yet if this theory holds up universally. So I’d love your feedback, as a Snow Report supporter and subscriber. Let me know what you think, what examples you have that go with or against the theory. And let me know if thinking about the choices you make in life through this lens is helpful at all.

I’m going to keep working.

Much love,

Shane