An Empirical Challenge Against Si

CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master ofArts Master thedegree of for therequirements of partialfulfillment In Are There Global Character Traits: Traits: Character Global Are There Character Traits, Situationism, and Cross and Traits, Situationism, Character Supervisor: Assistant Professor Andres Moles Professor Andres Assistant Supervisor: Second Reader: Professor Ferenc Huoranszki Professor Reader: Second Central European University European Central Department of Philosophy of Department Kamuran Osmanoğlu Kamuran Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Submitted to Submitted S ituationism 2012 by

An Empirical Challenge Against Challenge An Empirical

- Cultural ResearchCultural

CEU eTD Collection Milg Stanley namely situationism, of treatment philosophical the in figures prominent are which psychologicalexperiments four social consider firstly, I, chapter, second the Eliminativism.In Character Global namely traits, character on views three about talk will I and traits, character on situationism virtue ethics tomoral anundesirable relativism, is which of findings the endorse cannot ethics virtue traits, cross from data empirical are there though even that argue I Lastly, stage. the to back character of traits global the brings cross that demonstrate to succeeds it think not do I but challenge, tenable a as situationism against Challenge Empirical (2009) Prinz‘s Jesse consider I traits. character global tra as character considered be can authority to obedient being and collectivism, individualism, cross some of findings the examine I exis they if as traits character global of talk the accepts which Instrumentalism, Trait Global for argue I Challenge. Situationist the underestimate to efficient not are they that claim I and Challenge, Situationist the against ob some consider I chapter, third the In traits. character global than rather traits, character local supported empirically are there that conclusion the draw I and one, tenable a is traits character global and local between distinction the not or whether (199 Phone (1972) and Levin's Isen and Experiment, Samaritan Good (1973) Batson's C. and Darley J. Experiment, ) n Jh Drs (02 ves o situatio for views (2002) Doris' John and 9) ram's (1974) Obedience Experiment, Philip Zimbardo's (1971) Stanford Prison Prison Stanford (1971) Zimbardo's Philip Experiment, Obedience (1974) ram's In this thesis, in the first chapter, I represent the problem between virtue ethics and ethics virtue between problem the represent I chapter, first the in thesis, this In t i cmaio t taiinl nesadn o dsoiinl tutr of structure dispositional of understanding traditional to comparison in its els, lbl hrce Isrmnaim ad lbl Character Global and Instrumentalism, Character Global Realism, - booth Experiment. After setting the stage, I discuss Gilbert Harman's Gilbert discuss I stage, the setting After Experiment. booth - cultural research that supports the existence of global character global of existence the supports that research cultural t for explanatory and predictive purposes. In chapter four, chapter In purposes. predictive and explanatory for t - cultural research, and question whether concepts such as such concepts whether question and research, cultural Abstract i

cross

im I te eod hpe, I chapter, second the In nism. - cultural research otherwise this leads this otherwise research cultural conclusion forvirtue ethics. etos rm ite ethics virtue from jections - cultura l research research l

discuss

CEU eTD Collection 1. Introduction Contents Table of References CONCLUSION 4. 3. 2.

1.2. 1.1. 4.2. 4.1. 3.1. 2.2. 2.1. 1.5. 1.4. 1.3. Chapter 4 Cross CulturalResearch Cross Chapter 4 Chapter 3 2.1.1. Traits Local Chapter 2 1.2.4. 1.2.3. 1.2.2. 1. 1.1.1. Traits Character Global and Situationism Chapter 1

2.1. Four Objections Against Situationism Against Objections Four Conclusion ofCharacter The Fragmentation Conclusion Traits Global Character on John Doris Situationism and Gilbert Harman Experiments Social Psychology Ethics Virtue and Situationism Conclusion A Cross

......

Objections against Doris' Local Traits Local Doris' against Objections (1972) Phone Levin’s Isen and (1973) Experiment Samaritan Good andBatson’s Darley (1971) Experiment Prison Stanford Zimbardo’s (1963) Experiment Obedience Milgram’s Global Traits Objections Against Situationism Against Objections - Cultural Experimental Challenge against Situationism against Challenge Cultural Experimental

......

...... - booth Experiment booth

......

...... ii ......

......

53 52 51 42 42 31 31 30 26 21 21 20 15 10 10

9 7 5 5 4 3 3 1

CEU eTD Collection socia the ofsituationist in field withtheburgeoningdiscussions ofvirtueethics therevival observed has philosophy moral years, recent In theories. ethical several assess to need we questions we can How on? so and virtuous, ChristianMiller (2003, 2009), Sabini and Silver (2005), Gopal Sreenivasan (2002) 3 raises skepticism character about trait psychology agrees with folk psychological accounts of character traits, on the other hand, social psychology 2 1 conclusion.this character global chara no are there that argues radically, more (1999), Harman Gilbert traits. character global of instead these appeal should ethicists character local buttressed empirically are there that claims also 2002) (1998; Doris traits. character global are there that belief everyday our undermine experiments psychology social that claims (2002) Doris John psychologist situations. changed slightly in even differently behave people cross experiments no is psychology there that social demonstrate of findings However, situations. various in consistently more crucial thansituations explain to behavioral consistency. are andcharactertraits is traits,noble character thing tocultivate the onlyimportant that argue character than and factors, situational by influenced is behavior

Julia Annas (2002, 2005), Here, weshouldconsider the distinction between personality psychology and social psychology. Personality I have Doris (1998; 2002)and Isen and Levin (1972) particularlymind. in pyhlg, seily icsin o caatr Stains cam ta human that claims Situationism character. on discussions especially psychology, l Folk psychology tells us that individuals have character traits, and they woul they and traits, character have individuals that us tells psychology Folk courageous, honest, someone call to mean exactly it does What character? is What ris o as so traits 3

traits true traits They argue that They arguethat there globalcharacter are traits.

Nafsika Athanassoulis (1999),Rachana Kamtekar (2004), Joel Kupperman(2001), ? Are there no there Are ? o xli hmn eair. n h ohr ad virtu hand, other the On behaviors. human explain to

grasp the concept of character? To answer these and similar and these answer To character? of concept the grasp - iutoa cnitny vr epes eair, instead behaviors, people‘s over consistency situational 0.

global global I tr ris t l. s Harman's Is all. at traits cter ntroduction ris ie famne caatr ris ad virtue and traits, character fragmented i.e. traits, 1

character traits? Virtue ethicists disagree with disagree ethicists Virtue traits? character

we need to appeal to the to appeal to need we

1 2

The

refore, situationist social situationist refore, elimi

situations n ativism ethicists e d behave d

rather about

CEU eTD Collection xeiet J Dre ad . asns 17) od aaia Eprmn, n Ie a Isen and Prison Experiment, Samaritan Stanford Good (1973) Batson's (1971) C. and Darley Zimbardo's J. Experiment, Philip Experiment, Obedience (1974) Milgram's Stanley namely situationism, of treatment philosophical the in figures prominent are which Character Global and Instrumentalism, psychologicalexperimen four social consider firstly, I, chapter, second the Eliminativism.In Character Global Realism, Character Global on situationism virtue ethics tomoral relativ cross of findings the endorse cannot ethics virtue traits, cross from data empirical are Lastly, stage. the to back character of traits global the brings cross that demonstrate to succeeds it think not do I but challenge, tenable o structure a as situationism against Challenge dispositional Empirical (2009) Prinz‘s Jesse consider I traits. of character understanding traditional to comparison in global traits as character considered be can authority to obedient being and collectivism, individualism, f the examine I four, chapter In purposes. predictive and explanatory for exist they if as traits character global of talk the accepts which Instrumentalism, Trait Global for argue I Challenge. Situationist claim I and Challenge, ethics Situationist the against virtue from objections some consider I chapter, third the In traits. character global than rather traits, character local supported empirically are there that conclusion the draw i traits character global and local between distinction the not or whether situatio for views (2002) Doris' John and (1999) Phone (1972) Levin's In this thesis, in the first chapter, I represent the problem between virtue ethics and ethics virtue between problem the represent I chapter, first the in thesis, this In

indings of some cross some of indings

character traits, and I will talk about three views on character traits, namely traits, character on views three about talk will I and traits, character - booth Experiment. After setting the stage, I discuss Gilbert Harman's Gilbert discuss I stage, the setting After Experiment. booth ism, which is anundesirable ism, is which - cultural research that supports the existence of global character global of existence the supports that research cultural - cultural research, and question whether concepts such as such concepts whether question and research, cultural 2

that they are not efficient to underestimate the underestimate to efficient not are they that

im I te eod hpe, I chapter, second the In nism. - cultural research otherwise this leads this otherwise research cultural conclusion forvirtue ethics.

I argue that even though there though even that argue I s a tenable one, and I and one, tenable a s - cultural research research cultural

discuss nd ts f CEU eTD Collection situationism. And lastly, for this chapter, I discuss John Doris' John discuss I chapter, this for lastly, And situationism. for support radical his and traits global about eliminativismHarman' Gilbert discuss I Thirdly, situationis social by used four are explain and discussion I our for that, crucial are After which experiment, them. psychology among dispute a is there why and ethics virtue lives. moral have to and agents moral the Therefore, traits. character than rather behaviors individuals' the determining in role crucial a play features situational that reveals research systematic The picture. different a with us gather are which data the And character. of traits global about expectations ethicists' virtue the satisfy not does research empirical that argue They traits. character global or virtues, of existence the on skepticism their shed situationists, and agent to a cultivate moral life. moral be to as so person virtuous a be to try should agent an that argue ethicists virtue And di these traits, character proper required the acquires agent an if suggests Aristotle As behaviors. their in consistent be to agent the expect we situations; the across courageously behave to him expect we courageous, is agent loc different in virtuouslybehave to individual virtuous a expect we And courage. and generosity, honesty, as such traits, character these appealing by behaviors 1.1. argumentsand his against situationists

On the other hand, Gilbert Harman (1999) and John Doris (1998; 2002), (1998; Doris John and (1999) Harman Gilbert hand, other the On their explain to try We traits. character have individuals that think generally We In Situationism andVir h floig hpe, , isl, ak bu te eae ewe stains and situationism between debate the about talk firstly, I, chapter, following the

argue Situationism and Situationism

that we should consider the situations rather than virtues so as to be be to as so virtues than rather situations the consider should we that globalism tue Ethics

spositions are "firm and unchangeable" (NE, 1105b1). (NE, unchangeable" and "firm are spositions So, what are these global traits of character that the that character of traits global these are what So,

Chapter 1 Chapter

Global Character Traits GlobalCharacter 3

e d

from social psychology experiments leave experiments psychology social from

milder ations and situations. If an If situations. and ations

version of situationism, of version

namely the namely ts.

CEU eTD Collection consistency consistency and stability. 1.1.1. Doris (2002) onglobal traitsofcharacter. and (1999) Harman discussing while ethics virtue on more elaborate I chapter, this of sections future the In situationism. and ethics virtue Aristotelian both by shared are which them about reject? situationists 5 4 situational consistency across trait cross exhibits it if character of trait global a as character of trait a count can we Therefore,

Below, I also thegive Aristotelianunderstanding of global trait while discussing Harman. I will talkabout these twotheses anda thethirdthesis below. (3) (2) (1) (2) (1)

There arethree viewsThere onglobal traits: Doris to According Global Traits eliminate all reference to Eliminativism Trait Global useful forexplanatoryand Instrumentalism Trait Global who individuals those them.possess of makeup psychological and outcomes behavioral the in Realism Trait Global trait over iteratedbehaviors trials ofsimilartrait in manifested reliably are traits personality and Character Stability: conduciveness in their to themanifestation ofquestion. thetraitin trait of diversity a across behavior trait in manifested reliably are traits personality and Character Consistency:

In the following part, I will shortly talk about global traits and tw and traits global about talk shortly will I part, following the In

(2002, p. 22) p. (2002, : There really There :

t hem our thought andlanguage. from

- predictive purposes to purposesto talk as predictive if thereweresuch traits. : There really are no global character traits, and we should should we and traits, character global no are really There : relevant relevant situations. : There really are no global character traits, but it is is it but traits, character global no are really There : ,

globalism - are global character traits which play a central role central a play which traits character global are relevant relevant

relevant eliciting conditions that may vary widely vary may that conditions eliciting

about character traits include traits character about

eliciting conditions. 6

two theses: two - - o theses o relevant relevant relevant

- CEU eTD Collection global global global to result the reference though even traits, all character eliminates Eliminativism Trait Global traits. global of existence from data experimental the ignores Realism Trait Global other. the than successful is views extreme two these of situationist radical a is instance, (3 and (1) 378. 7 6 the instructions gives whofigure authority an obey toparticipants the of groups. cultural and educational economic, gender age, of range diverse a from subjects gathered conducted Milgram t study The participants. possible of attention the draw to newspaper local a in experiment his advertises Milgram tendency. this reinforce or urge that factors the and authority obey to 1.2.1. morallyand the disturbing behav situationism. crucia extremely are which experiments psychology the where demonstrate thi doing Before to arises. it why and arises and problem ethics virtue against used is that psychology situationist 1.2. defending atypeofGlobal TraitInstru

See Milgram (1963), Miller (2003, p.373)

character traits. Each view has impotencies against one another. another. one against impotencies has view Each traits. character Milgram's line the reconstruct to is plan my section, following the and this In Milgram’s Obedience Experiment Social Psychology Experiments ) are extremes for virtue ethics and ethics virtue for extremes are )

These experiments are important both for their methodological meticulousness methodological their for both important are experiments These well

'Behavioral Study of Obedience'.

- known Obedience Experiment aims to understand the human tendency tendency human the understand to aims Experiment Obedience known

h sca pyhlg eprmns wih hd setcs o the on skepticism sheds which experiments, psychology social the

ior subjectsior of their demonstrat and he is attacking on Global Trait Realism Trait Global on attacking is he and mentalism following inthe thesis s

(1963)

the In this study, Milgram measured the willingness the measured Milgram study, this In

5 7 situationism, respectively. Gilbert Harman, for for Harman, Gilbert respectively. situationism, Journal of Abnormal Psychology

experiments do not do experiments s, I firstly will consider four consider will firstly I s, l in the debate between virtue ethics and ethics virtue between debate the in l

e .

demonstrate there are no are there demonstrate . m to perform acts that acts perform to m

s of reasoning of the of reasoning of s , 67,pp. That is why I am am I why is That . However, However, . -

eae, socio related, notable social social notable

371 none hat - -

CEU eTD Collection experimental experiment the of confederate a is shocks, electric administers who instructor the to unbeknownst study, the in (learner) victim The Shock. Severe to Danger to Shock Slight from ranging switched graded 30 with punishment study, this In experiment. learning a of context the in (learner) victim a to punishment severe more increasingly administer to subject a ordering of consists study The conscience. and values personal their with conflicted not instructions the obey participants figure authority an of in change beings human the of behaviors the do why and How experimenter? the of request kind the upon shocks electric of levels 'severe' with learner the shock to continue shocks 450electric thelearner upto to V. two unconsciousness, feigned and V, 330 is (s)he if as screaming was victim the Although the of (learner) victim The subjects. the some in seizure caused has which laughter, nervous regular demonstrated disturbanc emotional this of expressions typical were stuttering and trembling, sweating, profuse subjects: some in tension nervous of levels extreme created experimentprocedureof the notes further thatanswers. Milgram the provide to(1963) refused protested (learner) victim the after point some at experiment the off broke subjects the of 14 on." go must you choice, other no have "You and continue," you that essential absolutely include which experimenter, the of provocations verbal or requests 'kind' the upon continued they continue, 100 What does this study tell us about human behavior? How can the subjects of the study the of subjects the can How behavior? human about us tell study this does What %

f h priiat flo te ntutos f h exper the of instructions the follow participants the of omns ul. vn oe f h sbet soe sgs f ilnns to willingness of signs showed subjects the of some Even fully. commands "lae otne" Te xeiet eurs ht o cniu, "t is "It continue," you that requires experiment "The continue," "Please d --

experiment was receiving faux electric shocks in the experiment. experiment. the in shocks electric faux receiving was experiment n hs ae t s h experimenter? the is it case this in r I ti suy 2 o te ujcs isrcos oee the obeyed (instructors) subjects the of 26 study, this In er. of the experimenter when experimenter the of

- thirds of the subjects subjects the of thirds 6

is administered by means of a shock generator shock a of means by administered is

in agony after being shocked at the level of level the at shocked being after agony in

the h d nt the not do Why e. And some of the subjects the of some And e. 65 % was obedient? Why do Why obedient? was % ( 65 % imenter ) otne t give to continued --

the presence presence the

35 l o the of all %

of the the of

and CEU eTD Collection hc aohr ua big I te te scin, wl dsus h fnig o Milgram's of findings the discuss will I sections, other the In being. human another shock of presence the changes.featuresIn Milgram'sandemotional complexpersonality study, on impact situation's behavior subjects' the determines that situation the is it or situation, the of nature the behavior. them, to answers the questions these of All subjects? fellow their with situation same the in were participants 8 the In tests. personality and interviews diagnostic giving by abuse drug or crime of history p psychological with candidates the eliminated They a choose o They sample walls. its within those all of behavior the on institution this of effects the simula a constructed they that, do to as So guard. prison or prisoner a becoming of were effects psychological the what see to was experiment the of aim The life. ad 1971. of summer the in Stanford at experiment this conducted Zimbardo 1.2.2. behave in the theexperimental sameeven if way tr character the than why answering rather situations of parameter a as vary behavior subjects' cannot situationists that think I questions. last the to answer exact an have not does still ethics virtue and situationism between debate the on literature The above. questions the answer will also I traits. character over situationism detail in Experiment Obedience

Zimbardo (1971), < in a local newspaper calling for volunteers in a study of the psychological effects of prison of effects psychological the of study a in volunteers for calling newspaper local a in

h scn ntbe xeiet s ibros tnod rsn xeiet Philip Experiment. Prison Stanford Zimbardo's is experiment notable second The Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment 2 clee tdns rm the from students college 24 f According to the reas situationists,the

the experimenter as an authority figure creates a situation for the subjects to to subjects the for situation a creates figure authority an as experimenter the http://www.prisonexp.org/> (Accessed 31May 2012).

100

a re crucial for grasping the importance of the 'situation' in human human in 'situation' the of importance the grasping for crucial re %

f h sbet o te iga' Oeine xeiet o not do Experiment Obedience Milgram's the of subjects the of

and their importance for the debate between virtue et virtue between debate the for importance their and .. n Cnd aog oe hn 0 applicants. 70 than more among Canada and U.S. none t announce 7

(1971)

onable explanation of the subjects' behavior is explanation ofis onable thesubjects'behavior

situation wassituation subject. same forevery

olm, eia dsblte, n a and disabilities, medical roblems, er itr o te li ta the that claim the on victory heir

ted prison and they noted they and prison ted 8

He broadcasted an broadcasted He is without aits hics and hics

and the and , and and , CEU eTD Collection were told that they must follow the guards' orders and rules. and orders guards' the follow must they that told were prisoners the And prisoners. the of respect the command to and prison the in order and law free, were They guards. half other be the to how on training and specific no given guards were guards The prisoners. became be to assigned randomly randomly them of Half coin. the of flip a by groups middle and by created were participants the of sample the end, guys 'normal' in te and psychopathy disorders, pathological of signs any demonstrate didn't behavi were guards the of some and ways pathological a created they because is That prematurely. study the terminate to had they that realized Zimbardo day, endofthefifth At the cleantheir thetoiletsbarehands with andsoon. to prisoners forcing the th forcing as such future possible hinder to ones punishments demeaning and cruel in participate to prisoners the forced physical guards The rebellions. of instead tactics psychological use to started solitary into rebellion prisoner the prisoners. the intimidated and harassed of they and confinement; ringleaders the forced out, beds the took naked, prisoners the stripped prisoners, the on extinguisher fire a sprayed guards The force. with trea guards the this, to response In door. the against beds their putting by cells the inside themselves barricaded and numbers, their of ripped caps, stocking their removed with a cruel way out trouble, there was a rebellion on the morning of the second day. The prisoners prisoners The day. second the of morning the on rebellion a was there trouble, out o cn e xli tee hne i te urs behaviors, guards' the in changes these explain we can How vrhligy oefl iuto i wih h pioes ee eaig in behaving were prisoners the which in situation powerful overwhelmingly - ls male class

with no tendency to behave cruelly behave to tendency no with were inflicting crueltywere inflicting on andpain theprisoners. e

prisoner

within limits, to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain to necessary was thought they whatever do to limits, within subjects

o ly nak play to .

n tee atcpns ee admy iie it two into divided randomly were participants these And ed leapfrog, smearing food in the prisoners' faces, faces, prisoners' the in food smearing leapfrog, ed 8

in the beginning of the research? It seems It research? the of beginning the in a group of group a ng in sadistic ways. The guards The ways. sadistic in ng

After that rebellion, the guards the rebellion, that After

Although the first day passed passed day first the Although 'healthy' , which 'normal' ndency to behave to ndency

ee en as seen were ted the force the ted , intelligent ,

who CEU eTD Collection tal a give to Seminary Theological Princeton's of students asked Batson and Darley behavior. helping the on focuses which experiment an designed (1973) Batson and Darley Samaritan. 1.2.3. behaviors. appea to need we like In Helping Behavior‘ 9 wasdeterminedsubjects' behavior situation thantheir character bythe rather traits. the that conclude situationists the Thus, help. to stopping without victim the by pass to them a of connection the realize to failing their and hurriedness subjects The them. on act will one that imply not does norms about thinking that show to seem results the he w stopped. hurry great a in were those of 10% and stopped, hurry moderate a in those of 45% help, to did variable task the but subject, the of behavior helping on effect major a caused 'hurriness' of amount the that remarked Batson time on be to time enough of some up; hurry should and late were they that told were subjects the of Some man. moaning the help to stop subject a would conditions what under was question The alleyway. an in slumped man a encountered they speech a give to building thei On continue. to building another to go to told then and building one in procedures experimental began they later and religion their about questionnaire personality

See Darley and Batson (1973), k, half on the Good Samaritan, and half on a different topic. Firstly, they are given a a given are they Firstly, topic. different a on half and Samaritan, Good the on half k, as goingon tospeak theparable oftheGoodSamaritan. Darley and Batson interprets that

In this study, it is found that a person in a hurry was less likely to help people even if even people help to likely less was hurry a in person a that found is it study, this In Good the of parable the from comes mention will I that experiment third The Darley and Batson’s

Journal of

l to the nature of the situation they were for explaining changes in their in changes explaining for were they situation the of nature the to l

‗From JerusalemJericho: to A Study ofSituational and Personality andSocial Psychology , and the rest were told that they would arrive early. Darley and Darley early. arrive would they that told were rest the and , Good Samaritan

n't. In the end, 63% of subjects that were in hurry stopped stopped hurry in were that subjects of 63% end, the In n't.

Experiment (1973) 9

, 27,

pp. 100 them were told that they had just just had they that told were them 9

- 108.

n emergency caused emergency n Dispositional Variables r way to the other the to way r

CEU eTD Collection help a passerby papershelp a her than whodropped subjects who didn to likely more times 22 were booth phone a in dime a found have who subjects that examined phone the in dime a find didn't who subjects control the than up pick to confederate a helped likely more telephone public a of return coin the in dime a received unexpectedly had who subjects experimental that found They helping. and 1.2.4. 10 thereare,noneofthethink moral usual virtues andvices." ca the be even may it and misguided deeply often are people to traits character of attributions ordinary that seems "It argues, 316) p. (1999, Harman psychology. social contemporary from ethics. virtue of claims descriptive the against evidence as experiments psychology social of results 1.3. Harman (1999) appear that to with thinkingabout conflict ordinary personality andcharacter." the in changes experiments. Gilbert se that there is no such thing as character, no ordinary character traits of the sort people sort the of traits character ordinary no character, as thing such no is there that se

Nevertheless, the existing studies have had neg had have studies existing the Nevertheless, and out carry to difficult very are sort re this of find studies to failed have traits character different having their that ways in mig behave differently people test whether to designed Empirical studies the considers who philosopher moral prominent most the of one is Harman Gilbert Gilbert take I Firstly, situationism. of favor in views two with continue I Now, psychology social notable most the some are presented I that experiments The th In Harman (1999) (1999) Harman Isen and Levin’s (1972) Phone Gilbert Gilbert Harman (2009, p. 235), 'Skepticism Character about Traits'. eir studies, Isen and Levin and Isen studies, eir

hs eprmns emphasize experiments These

features of the situation in situation the of features

and secondly, John Doris ( Harman

rejects the claims of folk morality by relying on the studies derived studies the on relying by morality folk of claims the rejects and

Situationism - booth Experiment

(1972) can cause dramatic shift dramatic cause can 1998; 2002) into 1998; 2002)into account.

h iprac of importance the 10

investigated the relation between 'feeling good' 'feeling between relation the investigated

ative re ative

there have been very few such such few very been have there sults. Since it is possible to possible is it Since sults.

He writes, also - levant differences. It is true true is It differences. levant booth. ot finda dime v.4%). (88% o d ee te lgt the slight the even do how human

Isen and Levin (1972) Levin and Isen s'

behavior 10

her papers her explain our explain , "in ways "in , ht ht studies. studies.

reflect that that

CEU eTD Collection traits. He traits. of kind such are there that believe beings human ordinary why explain to is second Harman's psychology. social in studies with untenable is traits, character global of possession demonstrate to as so research empirical the employs he Firstly, ethics. virtue against research empirical the From 11 does. person a things the of some explain supp ordinarily we And on. so and situation, any in condition, any under courageously act to disposed is person courageous A honestly. act to of understanding ethicists' virtue for sufficient whether is question the But traits. such of characterization 1999, pp.317 are traits Character (iv) way, relevant the in skills relevant the use to disposition stable term long a has trait character relevant the with person A (iii) skills, just not and habits involve must long relatively are They (i) points: following includes characterization His traits. Aristotelian character on of relies conception he traits, character of characterization a making is (1999) Harman courage, as such friendline vices, malevolence, benevolence, and dishonesty, honesty, virtues cowardice, include traits Character temperament. of aspects

Christian Miller (2005) calls this approachas 'negative approach'. broad based broad

these quotations, we can deduce that Harman has two aims in defending the findings of findings the defending in aims two has Harman that deduce can we quotations, these t em ta Hra' ls fr hrce tat icue eesr pit fr the for points necessary include traits character for list Harman's that seems It innate and disorders psychological traits character distinguishes (1999) Harman of existence the for empirical basis isno there f deriving as traits character in belief ordinary supplements h ie ta tee r goa caatr ris ie virtue like traits character global are there that idea the - 18). - term stable disposition to act in dis in act to disposition stable term

dispositions that help to explain what they are dispositions to do (Harman do to dispositions are they what explain to help that dispositions

his 'negative his 'negative approach' with

o isac, oe hlspes hn ta the that think philosophers some instance, For 11 character traits. A traits. character

ose that a person's character trait helps us to us helps trait character person's a that ose character traits (Harman 1999, 1999, traits(Harman character

tin his second o cran luin, e must we illusions, certain rom ctive ways, (ii) The relevant dispositions relevant The (ii) ways, ctive

or not or approach. n honest person is disposed disposed is person honest n Harman's

s n s o. While on. so and ss ad ie, r the or vices, and s characterizations p.316). conclude that that conclude

And,

CEU eTD Collection such as Miller (2003 Miller as such philosophers, some Although traits. character of understanding Aristotle's is conceptualizes moral However, vice. or virtue a of conception a analyzing while characterization 1999 Hursthouse possibl becomes it then and character, and virtue of conception a with analyzed best is morality of conception ordinary the in kindly or compassionately behave not do (65%) people the of most that demonstrates However, situation. the of exper features the Milgram's of irrespective people other to always kindly person kind behaves a And way. that in behave to him expect we least at or people, other 'compassionate' can We situations. of types different in virtuously behave to person virtuous a expect to reasonable is it criterion, this to are of presence anauthority figure? learner the to shocks electric sever maximum the giving of point the to experimenter the obey subjects Two authority. an of administration the under behavior human concerning findings Experiment. Samaritan Darley and Experiment Obedience (1963) Milgram's namely characterization become broad based broad ity represented by virtue ethicists is different from Aristotle's from different is ethicists virtue by represented ity Let (1999) Harman ufcet n ot f h css f cases; the of most in sufficient

us take the fourth condition of the Aristotelian account of virtue: "Character traits "Character virtue: of account Aristotelian the of condition fourth the take us vci) Hw n wy o h bhvos f h hmn ens hne n the in change beings human the of behaviors the do why and How (victim).

n 'kind' and dispositions that help to explain what the what explain to help that dispositions mn rpeet hgl cnrvril eut aot ua bhvo. It behavior. human about results controversial highly represents iment . f e cet ht hs ruet s re te w cn nld Harman's include can we then true, is argument this that accept we If ). ), think that that think ),

osdr to f h ntbe oil scooy xeiet above, experiments psychology social notable the of two considers The results of Milgram's experiment represent very interesting interesting very represent experiment Milgram's of results The .

consider the results of Milgram's experiment with respect to being to respect with experiment Milgram's of results the consider e to explain the features of morality in that respe that in morality of features the explain to e f pro i cmasoae i bhvs opsintl t all to compassionately behaves it compassionate, is person a If

even if Harman's characterization is n is characterization Harman's if even 12

r y upss I il cet Harman's accept will I purposes, my or y are dispositions to do." According do." to dispositions are y

n Bto' (93 Good (1973) Batson's and

conception. What Harman Harman What conception. ecessary, it does not does it ecessary,

this conception of conception this ct (Taylor 1991, (Taylor ct - third of third

CEU eTD Collection Experiment fourth detect the condition wedonot virtue oftheAristotelian ethics. they and shocks, behave severe giving by victims on pain inflict They authority. an of presence situational factorsaffecting in behavior, has been termedthe 'fundamental attribution error'." that true importance of pe is It p.369). 2003, (Miller general 12 in possession trait of extent the of issue the on bearing any have to supposed are experiment contrived extremely this of results the why arg an given not are we that says he secondly, And is case. this trait in lacking character supposed global what us tell not does Harman that argues he Firstly, experiment. taking the behavior at face value. by situation the of features the than rather dispositions, personal the by caused is obedience destructive subjects' the that infers he if error', attribution fundamental explain'the makes observer that trait, character the not situation, the is it that thinks He situation." the of aspects relevant than rather agent an of traits character distinctive to due are actions that infer wrongly observers ordinary which in ways different many shown than hav rather psychologists "Social argues, situationism 321) p. (1999, for Harman traits. character evidence of explanations as experiment Milgram's of findings Milgram's of results r experiment, the for explanation psychological social to appeals (1999) Harman

Ross & Nisbett (1991, p.4) explains the fundamental attribution error, "People's inflated belief inthe

ilr 20) ons u to eiinis n amns nepeain f Milgram's of interpretation Harman's in deficiencies two out points (2003) Miller Does Milgram's explain results? to way right level? the volt 300 in the to defect least at that fact character the about what a And defect? character to a to response situation. performance the of subject's details to the than is rather It subject subject. attribute the with to wrong terribly something tempting is there extremely think to not hard is It way. any in responding stopped had learner the which at point the past well and Shock" subjects Severe "Danger: the of one any consider Now Harman (1999 rel uo te eus o te experimenter. the of request the upon cruelly ather than character traits. By relying on Ross & Ross on relying By traits. character than ather rsonality traits and dispositions, together withtheir failure torecognize theimportance of

, p.322 ) elaborates onthesefindings,) elaborates

everyone

who went all the way to 450 volts, past the label label the past volts, 450 to way the all went who 13

But can we really attribute a 2 to 1 majority majority 1 to 2 a attribute really we can But ae hs hrce dfc? s ht ely the really that Is defect? character this have hrfr, n iga' Obedience Milgram's in Therefore,

Nisbett (1991), he interprets theinterprets he (1991), Nisbett s subjects' behaviors. And an an And behaviors. subjects' s all

subject s were willing to go go to willing were s

ument for for ument internal internal e CEU eTD Collection not think that soci that think not traits. character of existence the for evidence empirical no is there that argues explicitly he traits, character possessing is it hard threatens point second T Miller's experiment. Milgram's about ideas Harman's think not do I experiment. Milgram's in traits character global major as considered be can 'kindness' and 'compassion' above, out pointed have I As trait character global what us tell explicitly not does Harman overlooking much variousagentshow hurry the might of bein case this in factors, situational the overlooking of error Parable attribution fundamental Samaritan the commit Good the of interpretations "Standard argues, 324) p. (1999, H Harman beliefs. religious and character their to the respect anticipate with can behavior helping people subjects' morality, of conception ordinary the to according that claims In talks. their for have they did time much how was behaviors subjects' of determinant The behaviors. subjects' on effect any make not did talk, another or Samaritan Good on is it whether talks, th of 10% and stopped, hurry moderate a in those of 45% help, to stopped hurry in were that subjects of 63% study, this In chapter. traits. character global of existence the implies experiments psychology social that basis empirical no is there that thinks still he However, changed has Harman like seems su are there obvious is it that confidence one‘s undermine psychology social in results that think do I But ethics. virtue of version another or one for required as or conceived Harman, secondly, considers Darley and Batson's (1973) Good Samaritan experiment. Samaritan Good (1973) Batson's and Darley considers secondly, Harman,

other words, it was hurriedness that caused variance in subjects' behaviors. Harman behaviors. subjects' in variance caused that hurriedness was it words, other al psychology demonstrates there are no character traits, either as ordinarily as either traits, character no are there demonstrates psychology al ose were in a great hurry stopped. And the topic of subjects' subjects' of topic the And stopped. hurry great a in were ose

his 'radicalism' or 'eliminativism' on global traits slightly. slightly. traits global on 'eliminativism' or 'radicalism' his

In his recent work, Harman (2009, p. 241) argues, "I do "I argues, 241) p. (2009, Harman work, recent his In 14 hat is because Harman does not argue for how for argue not does Harman because is hat

I il ak oe n hs on i te other the in point this on more talk will

. lacks in Milgram's experiment. experiment. Milgram's in lacks "

ch traits." It traits." ch owever, CEU eTD Collection focus on character dispositions rather than the situations in predicting and explaining human explaining and predicting in situations the than rather dispositions character on focus that argues He are." there differences what explain not do traits character But etc. optimism, neuroses, strategies, goals, their in differ They situations. their of perceptions their in and situations in differ They traits. character in differ people that evidence no is there fact, in and, experiments. of understanding similar a represents (2002) Doris situationism. of presentation philosophical 1.4. chapter. Below, IcontinuewithJohn Doris'versionof situationism. most the of some discuss will I well. as thing character building, tocultivate thenitis meaningless totry character traits. life. from references character traits the our all to eliminate weshould traits arenoglobal and there traits. character of existence the for t idea; this support not do done been have that studies few the but traits, character in differ people not or whether tra character global of existence the arguefor to basis empirical is no There (2) character: on ideas of his summary a as considered be can arguments two these And experiments. psychology social of interpretations his on behavior.

And finally, he argues that if there is no such thing such no is there if that argues he finally, And on Doris' John take Harman'swork Of course, two makes also Harman Harm John DorisonGlobalCharacter Traits

(1) n 19) rw te olwn cnlsos rm hs to oil psychology social two these from conclusions following the draws (1999) an amn 19, . 2) rus "Ou atiuin tn t b wll incorrect wildly be to tend attributions "[O]ur argues, 329) p. (1999, Harman people, or observers, make the fundamental a fundamental the make observers, or people, he results of social psychology experiments do not give any empirical basis empirical any give not do experiments psychology social of results he 20) book, (2002)

other its, and (3) (3) and its,

ak f Character of Lack Harman is a global trait eliminativist and he thinks that that thinks he and eliminativist trait global a is Harman

important claims about about claims important s

important objections against situationism in the third third the in situationism against objections important lots of ethicists' hasvirtue criticismrage andit 15 It is very hard to do studies that might indicate indicate might that studies do to hard very is It

rpeet te uls acut of account fullest the represents , as character, then there is no such no is there then character, as global character traits by relying by traits character global ttribution error when they try to try they when error ttribution

on it their their

as CEU eTD Collection because "an emphasis on (global) traits and behavioral consistency is entire is consistency behavioral and traits (global) on emphasis "an because is That situationism. of understanding psychological moral his for consistency behavioral t trait exhibit will person that trait, a possesses person a If conditional: a with attribution trait the represents 16) p. (2002, Doris Therefore, conditions." oreliciting in way character a attribute "to that o among says say, to is 15) trait personality p. (2002, Doris book. his in traits character lexicon here. 15 these are held byinsufficient numbers 14 Aristotelian tradition. That is why Doris (2002) pays specific attention on this point. virtuously". These are only couple of examples thatsupport the relation between global traits and unfailingly in a virtuous manner"; andLarmore (1987, p. says12) that a virtue is"a firm dispositionto act 13 could trait that of nature the understand "who observers the then trait, character global certain a if that us tells Expectation Predictive And changes. situation the situations of types different in virtuously behave to person virtuous that us tells Expectation Consistency Ethics'. Virtue and Situations, 'Persons, Predictive and Expectation Consistency with means Expectation. Doris what explain to useful Pr and Consistency traits global of existence the for justification not provide does experiments psychology social of data empirical the that thinks He insufficient. a virtue. the to refers situations and traits character global of discussion Doris' 18). p. 2002, (Doris traits" character of tradition Aristotelian rait

Although Doris (1998) uses slightly different terms these for twotypes of expectations, I Miller'suse (2003) Although thinkshe inthat way, he still leavesthea bit open bysayingthatmaybe there are global traits but For instance, Woods (1986, p.149)says that Aristotle takes a - lctn conditions. eliciting oi (98 cms p ih hs to ye o epcain i hs rvos work, previous his in expectations of types two these with up comes (1998) Doris tra that like Harman,argues Doris,

edictive Expectations about global traits. global about Expectations edictive

oi py atnin n h rlto bten lbl ris and traits global between relation the on attention pays Doris

of people. ther things, that someone is disposed to behave a certain a behave to disposed is someone that things, ther

ditional understanding of virtue ethics is empirically empirically is ethicsof virtue understandingditional 16

virtue virtue of character to be "a dispositionto act --

eas te aa os o satisfy not does data the because 14 Before continuing, it would be would it continuing, Before 13 hrfr, e a sy that say can we Therefore, -- idvda psess a possesses individual n consistency condition of condition consistency

even if the features of features the if even - relevant behavior in behavior relevant ly standard in the in standard ly

consistency in e xet a expect we CEU eTD Collection hs epcain tu? hs ae eiiae usin t ak ad Doris and ask, to questions legitimate are These true? expectations these possession. trait empirica puts (2003) Miller as together, expectations these And traits. global of understanding Aristotelian in criterion are trait actual non or actual either of set some in behave probably would individual the how predict reliably 16 1998). the for justification tr character of existence empirical some, maybe not, are there that demonstrate experiments here. it do to try will I But, traits. project.this thanthat,themin andweexperiments, aside 2002)aimcanleave butDoris' (1998; isdifferent psychology social of date experimental on relying by false are they that proving of burden

Doris Doris (2002) refers to global traits underthe heading of (3) (2) (1)

The argument against Doris (1998; 2002) does not present a present not does 2002) (1998; Doris ris ih iia eautv vlne. hrfr, t eoe psil fr h th the for possible becomes it Therefore, valences. evaluative similar with traits other of occurrence the to related probabilistically is valence evaluative particular with Eva consistency expectation. empirical dat the However, conduciveness in their to themanifestation ofquestion. thetraitin a across behavior Consistency: l work in social psychology has on the truth of certain descriptive claims about global descriptive global claims truthofcertain about onthe psychologyhas social l workin - utv integration: luative eliciting circumstances" ( circumstances" eliciting

But do these expectations are true? Do we have any empirical basis to accept to basis empirical any have we Do true? are expectations these do But it

Character and personality traits are reliably manifested in trait in manifested reliably are traits personality and Character nicely, are the primary means by which to illustrate the bearing that that bearing the illustrate to which by means primary the are nicely, aits which satisfy both consistency and Predictive Expectations (Doris Expectations Predictive and consistency both satisfy which aits diversity of trait of diversity globalism

n gvn hrce o proaiy h ocrec o a trait a of occurrence the personality or character given a In

a As I have said above, Doris argues that argues Doris above, said have I As

from the social psychology experiments fail to satisfy thissatisfy experimentsto failpsychology social fromthe Miller 2003, p. 376). In fact, both of these expectations these of both fact, In 376). p. 2003, Miller 16

follows - relevant eliciting conditions that may vary widely vary may that conditions eliciting relevant 17 systematic argumentation to refute the global the refute to argumentation systematic

globalism

(Doris 2002, (Doris pp. 22 .

- 3) :

social psychology social

ih tk the take might - relevant ird - CEU eTD Collection t thinks he traits, global about theses undermines research empirical 1991). Flanagan 112; p. 2002, (Doris psychologies human actual to resemblance recognizable a bearing psychology moral predicated be should reflection ethical that idea the defends which ethics, in realism' either. realism trait global of thesis the defend language. and as Harman's thought our from them to reference all eliminate should we and traits character global no really are there argues which eliminativism, trait global of thesis t In stability. of variant a endorses he and theses, integration evaluative and consistency the rejects himself (2002) Doris integration, evaluative and stability consistency, namely theses, three rejecting by traits character about globalism functioning. human an of is account globalism inadequate that empirically argues and He traits psychology. other to moral compassion about globalist results undermines the generalizes which behavior human of realm crucial believe. us have would integration evaluative and consistency of these globalist the than variable situationally more far is behavior relevant Obed (6) (5) (4) ience Experiment, Zimbardo's Prison Experiment and so on indicates that compassion that indicates on so and Experiment Prison Zimbardo's Experiment, ience

oi (02 age ta te miia eiec ta i gtee fo Milgram's from gathered is that evidence empirical the that argues (2002) Doris Therefore, globalistTherefore, conception globalism. by expected patterns behavioral the reveal to fails typically observation Systematic that this is notthecase. demonstrates experiments psychology social the from data empirical the However, the of subjects reliablyin relevant trait actions or behaviors the predict and trait relevant the understand to parties strong

and Doris' as Doris' and

Although Doris is a situationist and he thinks that systematic that thinks he and situationist a is Doris Although modest s -

of eliciting situations.

versions of situationism. of versions character 18

He calls himself an advocate of 'psychological of advocate an himself calls He He thinks that compassion mark compassion that thinks He

hat sense, he differs from Harman and the and Harman from differs he sense, hat

are empirically inadequate vn huh situati though Even

However, Doris However, hat there are are there hat .

onism rejects rejects onism s an ethically ethically an s e a call can We local

does not does

traits, n a on CEU eTD Collection might seem to have global traits as measured by standard personality inventories, do not act act not do inventories, personality standard by measured as traits global have to seem might minor relatively situatio in that manipulation show experiments three first The variations. situational slight with dramatically varies behavior that indicate evidence empirical of Quantities above. discussion ofcharacter thetraits in next character. of fragmentation the of heading the under this examines he and 17 andStich 2006):(Doris a is results empirical by represented argument skeptical The on. so and courage virtue ethic the to comparison suchand Doris, traits lack psychologicalplausibility. nar either are traits character that suggest studies these of all Therefore, p.3). 2009, (Prinz ‗dishonest‘ and ‗honest‘ as such labels broad of application the undermines this and exam, an on cheat may supposed traits the than narrower be to need they then traits, have people if Then, traits. global of influence the under acting were they if similarly, behave to supposed are they which in contexts across differently behave individuals behaviors. across 0.2) (about correlation low a only discovered measured, be can honesty which in behaviors 33 on children thousand eleven p.3). 2009, (Prinz situation than rather traits, of function a as vary would behavior otherwise, traits; those on

I will discuss this in detail in chapter where willI look atsomemajor objections against situationism. Situational variability indicates that people‘s behavior is likely to be inconsistent with inconsistent be to likely is behavior people‘s that indicates variability Situational it chapter, this finishing Before row and efficacious or broad and inert (Prinz 2009, p.3). According to Harman Harman to According p.3). 2009, (Prinz inert and broad or efficacious and row For instance, Hartshorne and May‘s (1928) honesty study, which assessed which study, honesty (1928) May‘s and Hartshorne instance, For

n influences people‘s moral behavior. This suggests that people, who who people, that suggests This behavior. moral people‘s influences n chapter s‘ patterns expected on familiar trait categories, such as honesty,as categories,such trait familiar expectedon patterns s‘

would be useful to draw some results from the the from results some draw to useful be would

by virtue ethicists; even if a person does not steal not does person a if even ethicists; virtue by 19 Hartshorne and May‘s stud May‘s and Hartshorne

y demonstrates that demonstrates y I will explain will I modus tollens modus

local

CEU eTD Collection Doris (2005) insists that renderings of virtue ethics that are committed to globalism are not in not are globalism to committed are that ethics virtue of renderings that insists (2005) Doris troubled. deeply are psychologies moral globalist and undermined, seriously is characterolo psychology in thesis central the is, it argues Doris sound, is argument this If which character traits are empirically adequate instead of global traits. local embrace to need ethicists virtue that thinks he why is That character. of fragmentation beca is that global, empirically being than rather local are are they and fragmented are traits character that thinks traits He inadequate. character global that indicates experiments psychology social that psychol moral of explanation descriptive on discussion good presents Doris Harman. an from differs as Doris traits, global behaves about eliminativist and situationist radical a is Harman Although integration. evaluative and of theses three with problem has situationism that note can We traits. global against arguments situationism Doris' and Harman's reconstructed 1.5. withvantage to respect psychological plausibility.

So far, in this chapter, I discussed the notable social psychology experiments and I I and experiments psychology social notable the discussed I chapter, this in far, So 3. 2. 1. Conc

Behavior isBehavior Systematic observation does pervasive behavioral consistency. observat systematic traits, global by ordered typically is behavior If lusion

use there is good amount of empirical findings which support the the support which findings empirical of amount good is there use not

typically by ordered global traits. not

reveal pervasive behavioral consistency.

ogy. Harman, himself being a situationist, thinks situationist, a being himself Harman, ogy. 20

globalism

nml cnitny stability consistency, namely ,

ion will reveal will ion ia moral gical

CEU eTD Collection 2.1. against local inthetraits. I will dothis followingchapter. and for arguments some discuss to and traits, local and global between distinction the explain Vranas 64; p. 2004 2002, (Doris situations across consistent highly is behavior person's the if population the of intrap high exhibits person a distributions and situations, various in behavior members' the between correlation average positive high a is there intrapersonal between distinction a makes He traits. character concerning globalism on attacks He true. are character of fragmentation and situationism character than rather development of formoral education humans. management situation consider should we (2) and traits, character situation of terms in behavior humans' theses normative two for argues he claims empirical these on relying By folks. by accepted is globalism though even false, is globalism and true is situationism defends (2002) Doris And acros behavior situations. humans' in consistency no is there thus and traits, character global these (ii) and situations, various across consistently (i) nature: book, his In traits. global concerning

) .

oi (2002) Doris understanding Doris' presented have I chapter, previous the of section last the In to better be would it situationism, against objections major some with continue Before The Fr And Doris (2002) argues that "the best explanation of the low intersituational intersituational low the of explanation best "the that argues (2002) Doris And globalism

consistency. A person population exhibits high intersituational consistency if if consistency intersituational high exhibits population person A consistency. agmentation ofCharacter , which says that people possess global character traits and they behave they and traits character global possess people that says which , rces n h floig o s o eosrt ta tee about theses that demonstrate to as so following the in proceeds 2. ak f Character of Lack

- Local Tra pcfc ris i.e. traits, specific Chapter situationism

situationism

its 2

against

, he contrasts two views of human human of views two contrasts he wih as ht epe ak of lack people that says which , local local globalism ris rte ta global than rather traits, : (1) we s we (1) : consistency intersituational ersonal consistency ersonal . He thinks that that thinks He . hould evaluate evaluate hould

lis of claims

and s CEU eTD Collection the function of 'unified' traits but are 'specific functions of life situations'. They interpreted interpreted They situations'. life of functions 'specific are but traits 'unified' of function the the After schoolchildren. the that thinks Doris character is fragmented. why understand to experiments psychology social these of results the consider to better be would It experiments. psychology social various from conclusion typically is consistency intrapersonal that is consistency p.64). 2002, (Doris on so and situations, classroom other in behavior deceptive to than home at behavior deceptive instance, For tenuous. increasingly became situations those in behavior between relationship the dissimilar, doubt to reason that relat strong a see fail "we that argues correlations consistency these at looking by (2002), Doris 63). p. 2002, (Doris individuals particular of differ in behavior population's a of distribution measure not are .0 tap to intended of intercorrelation mean a found (1982) Peake and Mischel And extraversion/introversion. to relevant behaviors for .14 of correlation mean a found it and boys', 'problem for camp a at records behavioral daily kept (1926), Newcomb study, Another pp.123 1928, May and (Hartshorne .23 was honesty or deception for opportunities presenting situations of pairs different between intercorrelation main The th that is is supposed to follow from the minimal cross minimal the from follow to supposed is is Hartshorne and May (1928) observed that as the situations they studied became more became studied they situations the as that observed (1928) May and Hartshorne (1 May and Hartshorne

And they also found that even slight changes in situation were associated with associated were situation in changes slight even that found also they And conscientiousness in college students. Although these consistency correlations consistency these Although students. college in conscientiousness s

individuals actingindividuals typically are consistently." f esnl ossec, u te rfet eainhp bten the between relationships reflect they but consistency, personal of

i eair n h casom a ls srnl rltd o deceptive to related strongly less was classroom the in behavior r studies, they concluded that that concluded they studies, r 2) n hi suy f oet ivsiae oe 8,000 over investigated honesty of study their in 928) 22 ent situations, not between different behaviors behaviors different between not situations, ent

ion between these distributions, we have have we distributions, these between ion - situational consistency they observed: they consistency situational deceptive and honest behavior are not are behavior honest and deceptive o" p 6) Drs rw this draws Doris 63). (p. low"

fr ifrn situations different for 8 - ; oi 2002, Doris 7;

. 63). p. CEU eTD Collection we can expect a person in a trait relevant way after way relevant trait a in person a expect can we 'trait terms the both Although situations. relevant similar trait of trials a iterated in of exhibited reliably consistency a the over behavior allows Doris following. the is this draw can we that similarity. situational to proportional is consistency Therefore, behaviors". between relationship the weaker the situations, are dissimilar more the "typically observation: signifi 19 18 global traits, or thefragmentation ofcharacter, localtraits,is empirically supported. relation significant a reveal not does observation systematic while good because, is That traits. global have of instead traits local we of existence the support to like grounds seems it together, observations four these take pe we If remarkable disintegration." reveals often information "Biographical (4) supported. empirically not is behavior human overt and measures personality between relation The (3) traits." global "The (2) traits. global than rather situations by ordered are behaviors humans' that suggest situations across correlations consistency Low (1) character. of fragmentation the for and globalism with 'sailing as such traits, local accept instead we should why and courage like honest cross provides attribution trait local consistency. conclusion the draw cannot we case, conte highly attributing in justified are we obtains, stability temporal such "where that argues 64) p. (2002, Doris

Jonathan Webber (2007) asksasimilarquestion in'Character, Global, Local'. For the whole debate, see Doris (2002, pp. 63 - one's at ifrne i deception. in differences cant ' inanothersituation. Why should we abandon the idea that humans' behavior is determined by global traits global by determined is behavior humans' that idea the abandon we should Why eemntv ipc o uotuie iutoa fcos nemns trbto of attribution undermines factors situational unobtrusive of impact determinative - - friends relevant' and 'iterated trials' are relativ are trials' 'iterated and relevant'

ht s eas, te answer 'the because, is That - courage'

taie dsoiin o 'oa tat'" oee, vn f hs s the is this if even However, traits'." 'local or dispositions xtualized ?

Doris (Doris 2002, pp. 64 pp. 2002, (Doris Doris 18

hn oi gnrlzs athre n Mys (1928) May's and Hartshorne generalizes Doris Then - 66). - e cet i oe iuto my e 'score be may situation one in cheat' key

e terms, it sounds reasonable to argue that argue to reasonable sounds it terms, e x

trials of similar situations. Therefore, situations. similar of trials - 5) makes four observations against against observations four makes 5) ewe hmn eair and behavior human between

- in

- h conclusion The rough - situational -

weather - adding rsonal rsonal - CEU eTD Collection oi bcue h eprmns e ees xmn dfeet hrce tat, respectively, traits, character different examine refers he experiments the because Doris (1929). Newcomb and (1982), expe psychological Character of Lack Doris' of review his in (2004), Vranas Peter experiments. psychology various with premise above, said in as traits such by but compassion, as such traits global by determined not is behavior that indicate (1929), Newcomb and (1982), Peake mayb experiments, Batson's and Darley and Milgram's, argument, situationism Doris' applying by Therefore, 430). p. 2007, (Webber in is subject that hurry of degree the to proportion inverse in decreases compassionately behaving l the that us shows experiment Batson's and Darley bystander. these took subjects chance the given these of both In compassion. trait, single a for data empirical enough have we experiments, for these From different experiments. Batson's is and Darley this and Milgram's, But (1929). Newcomb and (1982), Peake and Mischel (1928), May Good in Batson's trait single a of accumulation is there that and true is It Experiment. Samaritan Darley and Experiment Obedience Milgram's namely experiments, behavior compassionate on that relying by position argue his defend to easily can Doris Doris However, here. for likely not a have might Vranas is low. is behaviors it individuals' across consistency Therefore, intersituational trait. single any for evidence of con honesty, One reason for Doris to bring the idea of local traits instead of globalism is, as I have have I as is, globalism of instead traits local of idea the bring to Doris for reason One it is the case the is it scientiousness, and extroversion/introversion, therefore, there is no accumulation no is there therefore, extroversion/introversion, and scientiousness, s , criticizes Doris on this point. this on Doris criticizes ,

iet rpre b Hrson ad a (98, ice ad Peake and Mischel (1928), May and Hartshorne by reported riments o cmasoae eair bt upiigy eey ml nme of number small merely surprisingly but behavior, compassionate for chances under the presence of a kind experimenter and a passive passive a and experimenter kind a of presence the under chances that intersituatio that rns 20) rus that argues (2004) Vranas nal consistency is low. And he tries to support this support to tries he And low. is consistency nal - e not Hartshorne and May (1928), Mischel and Mischel (1928), May and Hartshorne not e a 24 - hurry

Doris supports this premise by referring to referring by premise this supports Doris - compassion, on compassion,

this support is not sufficient for for sufficient not is support this experi ikelihood of a given subject subject given a of ikelihood ments - time - , the subjects were subjects the , compassion, time compassion, Hartshorne and Hartshorne point - CEU eTD Collection empirically supported and adequate trait attributions. And empirically trait attributions are are attributions trait empirically And attributions. trait adequate and supported empirically 2009 Upton 2002; (Doris actors and deliberations moral that attributions and choices, and deliberation, reasoning, moralbetter foster attributions trait Doris, to pp. 32 to 20 concludes Doris experiments, psychology social major of vast other and this, from And situationism. of lessons the taking by situation a such avoid can she respondents, Milgram's of one not is she tende behavioral destructive morally only 'loyal is attribution trait accurate descriptively right the that true but sad is it example, this In And theexample follow of example the gives he paper, this In Ethics'. Virtue and Situations, 'Persons, work, have better understanding of to people help would attributions trait local Therefore, attributions. trait global not traits, local

Emphasis ism - spare - when - 51) p flow to begins wine the and lit are candles the once value this you with conformity fidelity; value sincerely you that doubt not do You On yo predict to able harm. of bit the like dinner avoid you a heart, to situationism anyone did never claret you concern; causefor islittle there that a outcome undesirable morally for infidelity the you regard you that further assume and invites one, right the is text this flirtation are long you that obvio the a assume excuse Let's town. of the out is spouse had your with while orphaned temporarily wine, have fine and food you sumptuous of whom enticement offering with dinner, colleague a that Imagine previous (1998) Doris's consider should we claim, this of evidence textual the For according that, is traits global than rather traits local accept to us for reason other The - p opsin presence compassion, . 516 . - ht esol appeal should we that sober' or 'loyal or sober'

ine. - 7)

accurately

ur behavior in a problematic situation on the basis of your antecedent values. values. antecedent your of basis the on situation problematic a in behavior ur s,

- only

describe human morality, deliberation human andmoral reasoning.

- - of when - . attribute empirically adequate traits like 'loyal like traits adequate empirically attribute 20 a -

If you are like one of of Milgram's one arelike If you passive ncy with these trait attributions (Upton 2009, p. 182). If If 182). p. 2009, (Upton attributions trait these with ncy - ua big are beings human not - tipsy' of this lady. And she can recognize her actual her recognize can she And lady. this of tipsy' - are, after all, a are, afterall, bystander 25

plague, because you know that you may not be not may you that know you because plague, the

- opsin ad o on so and compassion, other hand, if you take the the take you if hand, other

eesr fr rdcn successful producing for necessary morally upright person, and a spot of spot a and person, upright morally a . f ore fr ht e need we that for course, Of ). simply

respondents, you might think think might you respondents,

doubt doubt or blt t at in act to ability your

that may result as a a as result may that

us Drs 2002, (Doris . - (D

only way to read to way lessons flirtation. flirtation. oris 1998, oris the trait the - when of - - CEU eTD Collection 2.1.1. andtheother Candace Upton(2009) from (2009). Miller Christian onefrom objections, consider two will I section, following the In here. manyof them consider character traits 'mountain sober', adequacy. 22 21 that althan their rather necessity, theoretical their of because traits local of attributions defends She 176). p. 2009, (Upton behavior" their explain and predict to thus, and, rooted are they features mental infor to others, and ourselves appraise 113). p. 2009b, (Upton contingently" only holds which situation, empirical the upon dependent wholly trait Do that local and achieve, to us which enable to supposed boons are ascriptions the establishing for necessary are ascriptions trait to that fails "Doris establish Doris that and character, of traits as qualified be cannot traits local objec Doris' (2009) Upton However, error'. attribution 'fundamental the making stop can agents moral traits, local embracing With agents. moral for behavior and choices reasoning, both 'mountain as such traits character local accept should ethicists virtue that argues Doris traits. local Doris' from differs traits 'local' of version

Upton claims Doris that defends the latterview which defends localtraits on the grounds ofalleged empirical See Upton (2009). Doris provides no reason why we should think of think should we why reason no provides Doris

miial spotd n ter dpin a poie etr nesadn o moral of understanding better provide can adoption their and supported empirically Upton (2009) presents three presents (2009) Upton de (2009) Upton Candace and objections various gets thesis traits local Doris' Objection

hrfr, Upton Therefore, legedly empirical adequacy. . 21

- climbing

against Doris' Local Traits

- orgos, n 'family and courageous', eed lcl ris f hrce wih eal u mrly to morally us "enable which character of traits local defends

fends a local account of character traits. However, her her However, traits. character of account local a fends

objections against Doris' local traits. Firstly, she argues she Firstly, traits. local Doris' against objections 22 u o ohr‘ eairl ednis n i which in and tendencies behavioral others‘ of us m

26 - climbing

- and local character traits, such as such traits, character local - - courageous', because such traits are traits such because courageous', friends epne. t s o psil to possible not is It responses. ris‘s local traits‘ justification is justification traits‘ local ris‘s - ut, hc ae called are which just',

mountain s that ts local - CEU eTD Collection ht oi' oa caatr tr character local Doris' that say to useful be would it Firstly, unstable. normatively and empirically are character of traits beinlocal traits reason no gives behave to disposition cl support glob unlike psychology, social by research empirical by supported are global. traditionally psycholog cha as traits local endorse should and others, necessaryfor traits. 'local' allegedly her of existence the support she when 'local' into 'global' word the changes trait similar the of all in stable and consistent be to traits local expects she And traits. global and local between distinction clear a make not does fact, in she, because is That traits. local Doris' accuses she when mistake a makes Upton that think loc particular that for stability normative get to us help also can traits local particular of stability the for basis empirical This 382). p. 2003, (Miller situation e have to possible is it case, the being This claim. this satisfy to evidence empirical enough have we And situation. of type particular construed narrowly same the to restricted is that behavior imbing She considers local traits as "necessary for us accurately to morally appraise ourselves ourselves appraise morally to accurately us for "necessary as traits local considers She mpirically stable local traits from narrowly construed particular type of trait of type particular construed narrowly from traits local stable mpirically Even though it is argued that that argued is it though Even order. reverse the in objections these answering start I

Local traits has an explanatory role in examining the human behavior. And loc And behavior. human the examining in role explanatory an has traits Local globali - org, s normatively a as courage, rsac dmntae ht hr i eog rao t accept to reason enough is there that demonstrate research y - acclaimed sm about character traits character about sm g empirically normatively and unstable. for the virtue ethicists virtue the for . Secondly, .

hrce traits. character the concept ofjusticethe concept retain to itsnormative integrity" (p.183). is aif te ossec ad rdcie xettos for Expectations Predictive and Consistency the satisfy aits

she says that says she Doris does not explicitly explain why the virtue ethicists virtue the why explain explicitly not does Doris racter traits, the experimental findings of the social social the of findings experimental the traits, racter - valenced to endorse local traits local endorse to without having any empirical data. Social psychology Social data. empirical any having without

oa tat ae hrce tat, u te ae not are they but traits, character are traits Local 27

even if local traits are character traits, Doris traits, character are traits local if even hrce tat t l, ahr hn eey a merely than rather all, at trait character

- . And thirdly, she accuses Doris' accuses she thirdly, And . lctn stain. h merely She situations. eliciting

Upton argues that Doris' local local Doris' that argues Upton al trait as well. as trait al al traits. Virtue ethicists Virtue traits. al

oa tat as traits local

however - eliciting al traits al , I ,

CEU eTD Collection hc te gns n y ae pses I sc a ae lcl ris would traits local case, a such In possess. cases my in agents the which to reason endorse to ethicists virtue for their determines reason adequate provide not does traits, research empirical this that global case the be might It than behaviors. rather situation, the because is that behaviors, their d experiments the situation moods withsubjects' andnegative ratherthan deals positive (2009) Miller about. traits local of conceptualization her but Doris, from differs traits local of that understanding true Upton's is It population. the of most the across character of trait local particular a detect cross of expectations p 1982, and Mischel Peake 3; p. 1968, (Mischel situations similar highly of trials iterated over stability considerable temporal exhibit will thatbehaviorcriticsagree personality the thateven says He claim not does Doris hold. worry Upton's to competent be should "we like something amount what to sure not am I why, is That 76). p. 2002, (Doris particularities" psychological individual of independently characterizable situation cross not are these but iterations, several fine are there that idea the proposed Doris describe is quite is

Here, I bring another objection against Doris' local t local Doris' against objection another bring I Here, traits local the possess might agents real few very a "Only that, argues also Upton - most of the population the of most pcfc ad e hns ht hy a differ can they that thinks he and specific, ignore similar to globalism. to similar . Miller, interestingly, concerns some social psychology experiments which which experiments psychology social some concerns interestingly, Miller, . emonstrate that individuals do individuals that emonstrate . 734 p.

empirically supported localtraits either. - iutoa cnitny Tu w cno drive, cannot we Thus consistency. situational - ; os n Nset 91 p 11, u ti de nt rn the grant not does this but 101), p. 1991, Nisbett and Ross 7; , and local traits would not be empirically adequate" empirically be not would traits local and , local traits as character traits, but they do not have enough enough have not do they but traits, character as traits local

And this is not the concept of local traits which Doris talks Doris which traits local of concept the not is this And -

- grained local traits local grained describe most of the population with local traits." traits." local with population the of most describe iutoal cnitn. uh id f ris are traits of kind Such consistent. situationally

not demonst not 28

i trs f niomna features environmental of terms "in rate cross rate raits. This objection comes from comes objection This raits. which can have stability after stability have can which - situational consistency in consistency situational nie po de, to does, Upton unlike

in which not

subjects aresubjects adequately

(p. 192). (p.

CEU eTD Collection people experiencing people well. as fragmented highly be to behavior helping expect would we then local, various of collection a of consisted merely characters our if that says (2009) Miller traits. helping local of existence the for support any provide not does research e the that argues (2009) Miller traits, helping concerning results experimental psychology social of research systematic some to referring in. 24 23 compassion,acclaimed ofcharacter, trait orother traits must independent ofmood. be traditionally our but affect, and mood subject's on depend behaviors helping global calls agai fight the win ethicists virtue that follow not does it traits, helping global of existence the accept we if even too, that of aware is himself claims. Miller's for support e have can we then mood, negative the experiencing is he when situations other the to helps who wor at structure more be to seems "there that claims Miller Therefore, not. would levels raised such withou those of many while circumstances, of variety wide a in help would affect positive of th that argues 165) p. (2009, Miller However, organization. charity a for volunteer to not maybe but study,

However, I will not For literature overview, see Carlson etal. (1988) and SchallerCialdini and (1990). 23

He investigates the relationship between positive/negative affect and helping behavior helping and affect positive/negative between relationship the investigates He k than a fragmentation model of character would lead us to believe." to us lead would modelof character fragmentationthan a k e empirical data su data empirical e

discuss these social psychology experiments here.

positive affect positive s in various situations when he is he when situations various in s However, the problem with Miller's argument is that, and Miller Miller and that, is argument Miller's with problem the However,

ggests that ggests

to help picking up the dropped papers in Isen and Levin's Levin's and Isen in papers dropped the up picking help to a significant number of people with raised levels raised with people of number significant a 29

nst the situationists. It is because, what Miller what because, is It situationists. the nst

in his positive his in For instance, we would expect many expect would we instance, For

. 24

fe hs xmnto of examination his After

mood, but does not in not does but mood,

If we find an agent an find we If og empirical nough xperimental

by - t CEU eTD Collection trait of character. of trait global unlike basis, experimental the on supported are traits local because traits global than rather traits character local of existence the accept should we that argues He glo observations. against view his buttresses he and traits, global of instead character local Dorisor not exist. character traits (2002) 2.2. psychology. byempiricalsupported researchofsocial appeal should we do, (2002) Doris like that, of existence the deny to reasons good us gives objections these of None traits. character local Doris' against successful (2009). Miller from one and (2009) Upton

In this In Conclusion chapter, I chapter,

I have considered three objecti three considered have I

local character traits, and to accept the thesis about globalism. I think think I globalism. about thesis the accept to and traits, character local have

discussed Doris' (2002) thesis of local character traits, whether traits, character local of thesis (2002) Doris' discussed

hv age ta nn o tee betos are objections these of none that argued have I

30 to local character traits since their existence is existence their since traits character local to contends that of we shouldappealto local traits

ons against local character thesis, two from two thesis, character local against ons

balism with four four with balism CEU eTD Collection people are swayed by situational factors is no surprise to virtue ethicists. This objection has objection This ethicists. virtue to surprise no is factors situational by swayed are people 3.1. situationism from ethicists. virtue super same the requires theory Virtue k they though even virtuous be to bother people normal why then virtuous, be can sages only if And reach. persons lay above itself places theory this then virtuous, become can sages only If consequentialism. and Kantianism over ethics virtue re no is there that see we reasoning, practical of methods require not does it for theories moral other as demanding as not is ethics virtue that argue ethicists virtue Although o to agents urges Kantianismcareutility. only we whereway in a actshould we that suggests Consequentialism consequentialism. and Kantianism as demanding as least at demanding, too becomes virtue, l our of theory moral a as ethics virtue to objection and toacquire virtue,as virtuous be to people many expect not should we Thus, masters. these emulating by virtuous shouldwe respect,this virtue. And,with development can achieve character cultivate acquir to impossible almost is virtue that argued is it philosophy, Ancient In (2004). Sreenivasan Gopal and (2005) Annas Julia by made been

s hs beto gatbe y situationism by grantable objection this Is therefore, virtuous; be to hard is it that claim ethicists virtue Firstly, following IwillconsiderIn the chapter some andcrucialobjections against general Four

above Objections AgainstSituationism . First, if virtue is rare and it is hard to be virtuous, why do we need to appeal appeal to need we do why virtuous, be to hard is it and rare is virtue if First, . bey law bey

virtuous behaviorvirtuous rarely exists. - like dictates of reasons, even if the net result is total devastation. total is result net the if even reasons, of dictates like Objections Objections

3. - human methods of practical reasoning of Kantianism Kantianism of reasoning practical of methods human

ives? In fact, virtue ethics, by insisting the rarity of rarity the insisting by ethics, virtue fact, In ives? Chapter Against Situationism Against 31

e. Only sages and who dedicated his life to life his dedicated who and sages Only e. Tee r to hr cmns f this of comings short two are There ?

now it is impossible to be virtuous? be to impossible is it now

the fact that most that fact the ason to accept to ason try

to be to CEU eTD Collection that the ideas and principles of reason are to be used 'regulatively', as devices for guiding and guiding for devices as 'regulatively', used be to are reason of principles and ideas the that says which Principle', 'Regulative Kant's to similar is acquire to impossible almost is virtue the to appealing by persons better morally be to try and aim always can Individuals 'virtuous'. or 'virtue' like nothing is there reach the goodlives that wearet not does ethics virtue Therefore, consequentialism. and 25 is it psychology, human about right is situationism If traits. efficacious such possess can traits, character have not do who beings, human that assuming ethics virtue for problematic very is It traits. character by driven demonstra to alleges psychology situationist But p.8). 2009, (Prinz virtuous not were that traits character by driven were people most if rare is virtue that say to reasonable perfectly be would It traits. inner by driven being of capable are ours like mi that believe to reason no have we However, traits. character by driven be can behavior that presupposes this And virtuous. becoming of possibility the leave rare is virtue claim The Flirtation Example. agents immoral them make not does this and situations, various to according behaviors their regulate can They traits. global than rather traits, local to appealing (hardly impossibly is it that know they though even lives, moral conduct to virtue concept the need individuals do why But correlation. this with happy be not will probably most ethicists virtue in empirical our grounding

Michelle Grier(2012), < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant - This objection This ifeven individuals, for role instrumental an have might virtue of concept the However, possible) to be a virtuous being? They can be moral be can They being? virtuous a be to possible)

secondly, vestigations and the project of knowledge acquisition. knowledge of project the and vestigations

not possible for human beings to acquire such traits. Becoming traits. such acquire to beings human for possible not

rying tofind. underestimates the ramifications of situationist psychology. situationist of ramifications the underestimates instrumental role of th of role instrumental 32

- metaphysics/ >. provide a better moral theory for us for theory moral better a provide e concept of virtue. This claim that that claim This virtue. of concept e te that people are not ordinarily ordinarily not are people that te ly good or right individuals by by individuals right or good ly

s oi' Professional Doris' as 25

However, However, nds to CEU eTD Collection responses. Annas (1993, p.51) writes that virtue includes ―a firm tendency to act and decide indecide and act firmto ―a tendency virtue includes that writes p.51) Annas(1993, responses. to supposed are traits character that presupposing of Harman, and Doris especially situationists, accuses ethicists of charactera notion espoused theethicists. byvirtue that hasnothingtodowith notion Virtue helpcannot machinery gainsuch formorality.us to new education moral And 2009). (Prinz architecture cognitive different wholly a requires virtuous 26 you If reasoning. by affected not are they situations, of range wide across robust are reflexes sensitiv capacities context and practical flexible have Virtues p.9). 2009, (Prinz changes situational slight of regardless conditions, certain under responses automatic by triggered be to need they then reflexe automatic like be would they exist, traits character If way: following the in reason may Situationists ‗virtue‘. of understanding similar have psychology situationist and ethics virtue both that demonstrates virtue of explanation over more by as well as decision and deliberation, response, emotional but dispositions mere not are However createsVirtue arelation with deliberation. reasoning. practical with relation in be to needs it responses; automatic or habits, of kinds than more is virtue or trait a having sense, this In essential.‖ is reasoning practical agent‘s the which to disposition a is ―Virtue theory, moral Aristotelian on relying 2005) (2002, Doris what to similar is ‗firm‘ with means she What other.‖ the than rather way one

Emphasis inoriginal.

means with ‗robust‘. In addition to this explanation, Annas (2002, p.11) claims, by by claims, p.11) (2002, Annas explanation, this to addition In ‗robust‘. with means Virtue ethicists arg ethicists Virtue and (2005) Annas Secondly, , apparently, this is not the case for situationism. Doris (2002, p.17) writes, ―Virtues writes, p.17) (2002, Doris situationism. for case the not is this apparently, ,

be behavioral dispositions like habits, or unthinking automatic automatic unthinking or habits, like dispositions behavioral be ue that situationism that ue , n te ae o elxs codn t vru ehcss Since ethicists. virtue to according reflexes not are they and e,

intelligent intelligent

Rachana dispositions, characterized by distinctive patterns of patterns distinctive by characterized dispositions,

Kamteka 33 does not have such an understanding of virtue. virtue. of understanding an such have not does

; f eair ee otold y reflexes, by controlled were behavior if s; r (2004) claim that situationists discuss situationists that claim (2004) r

engaging in certain in engaging behavior.‖ t — hy are they 26

This CEU eTD Collection objection above, which says that the situationists' understanding of virtue is not same with the with same not is virtue of understanding situationists' the that says which above, objection by controlled not is behavior that demonstrate experiments experiments similardramatic cause and this However, experimenter. reflex such have not do people that the demonstrate of request kind the upon learner the harm not should you experiment, obedience (1974) Milgram‘s in instance, For justice a have (non subjects' the of many distributed, 281). p. 2009, (Badhwar agent responsible a as himself of conception his and himself, of conception his and situa goals, the of construal individual's take to need also we why is That behavior. his explain to enough be cannot situations the of features then agent, deliberating and active an beh experiments e situationist at look we However, when behaviors. individuals‘ in them see to expect we then skills, practical are traits with appropriate of concept moral about care individuals that Suppose p.9). 2009, (Prinz do to what decide subjects when p are traits character if Therefore, acting. about decisions their and situations the over think generally They deliberation. in engage generally, same because is That granted. not is virtue, of understanding ethicists' virtue understanding of understanding hn e ok t iutoit xeiet, e elz ta sbet o experiments, of subjects that realize we experiments, situationist at look we When

and his post his and - reflex, you have to struggle with any case where there is injustice (Prinz 2009 (Prinz injustice is there where case any with struggle to have you reflex, changes in behavior. W behavior. in changes ave in accordance with this disposition. this with accordance in ave x

and which are n are which and x

n te cnepae vr situations over contemplate they and

the of concept virtue - experimental interviews with the subjects of the experiment revealed experiment the of subjects the with interviews experimental

- global traits). Although Milgram's subjects were deliberating and deliberating were subjects Milgram's Although traits). global h follow The prmns w osre ht few that observe we xperiments, ot , and what is the right and wrong thing to do. If character character If do. to thing wrong and right the is what and , e can argue that, as Prinz (2009) also does, also (2009) Prinz as that, argue can e - p post up

with virtue ethicists 34

- ractical skills, then they should be available be should they then skills, ractical - like dispositions, and situational c situational and dispositions, like experimental questionnaires that Milgram Milgram that questionnaires experimental

We can still argue that if a person is person a if that argue still can We reflex n aot hc atos are actions which about and .

like traits. like f h sbet i these in subjects the of the situationists share situationists the

Therefore, the Therefore, situationist ontext can ontext in his tion, the ). CEU eTD Collection someone in distress‖. Is it really it Is help distress‖. in someone to reason the defeat can hurry in is one that fact ―the way, following the in situation were they if not but %), (63 lecture a give to hurry in not were they if stranger moaning a to help to tended subjects that demonstrates 'dispositional' traits. an supposed their with appropriately behave not did them of 65% agents, choosing it then distress", in help someone to reason the defeat can hurry in is one that fact the " view, Sreenivasan's accept we if Secondly, traits? character to appeal to need we do why then action, agents' the determines the is this If behavior. agent's the over situation the two of because view context is reason that accept this they if Firstly, reasons. for argue ethicists virtue think not do I However, situation. a is reasoning also but a reflexes, behavioral only not that demonstrate might experiments certai under them scattering of of findings experimental on relying by that, claim can We so. not is this However, challenge. situationist vir case, the was that If p.10). 2009, (Prinz distress in person a help to not rational is it that conclude may subjects experiments, these in them; of one violate to forced are we other, each against pitted are norms two when this, is says (2004) Sre What parties. other the on pain inflict to unjust is it that know they if even or torture condemn they if even torture to continue others, the onto pain inflict to authority have talk a ffected context. bysituational ? Zimbar ? It seems that reasoning is context is reasoning that seems It experiment Seminary Theological Princeton (1973) Batson‘s and Darley instance, For situationism do‘s (1971) and Milgram‘s (1974) experiments (1974) Milgram‘s and (1971) do‘s

, even though people have reasoning dispositions, they are incapable are they dispositions, reasoning have people though even ,

is absurd to argue for being virtuous being for argue to absurd is

plausible n situational changes (Prinz 2009, p.10). The situationist situationist The p.10). 2009, (Prinz changes situational n - sensitive and one reason can override the override can reason one and sensitive

to leave a groaning person because you are late are you because person groaning a leave to late (10 %). Sreenivasan (2004, p.60) explains this explains p.60) (2004, Sreenivasan %). (10 late 35

- sensitive, then they accept the effects of effects the accept they then sensitive,

u ehc wud ae nwr against answer have would ethics tue ae i te otx ad h situation the and context the if case, demonstrate . A virtuous person would would person virtuous A .

that people, who people, that d predicted d

other(s) in other(s) enivasan

for CEU eTD Collection oa aet b rlig n h dt fo sca pyhlg eprmns Fr th For experiments. psychology social from data the on relying by agents moral of behaviors interpreting in wrong makes situationism that argue can experiments psychology experbefore the these pass to just not compassionately, virtuously, behave to person virtuous a expect We agony. in person moaning a leave never Kitty Genovese, Reachedat May 20, 2012. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese>. 27 of reactions ex may psychologist didnone oftheneighbors to try interrupt theperpetrator. neighbors, several by hurt was cry her and me!", Help me! stabbed he God, my "Oh screamed she though Even nonresponsive. were they but situation the of aware fully was her, on attack non her of front in perpetrator a by murdered 'B the demonstrated (1968) Latane and Darley instance, For experiments. psychology social 'artificial' these of that is reason second The situation. each every in mechanism Milgram in is matter one not not or does whether it Therefore, life. everyday for another and lab the for one mechanisms: objection. Milgram in be to individuals for unlikely is it that claim can they instance, For experiments. these in situations artificial of features somedistortedby are agents situations.And real life therepresent not experimentsdo

Eventhough Wikipedia articles 'welcomed' are not professionals, by here isa good articlethe on ob This event is very similar to the bystander examples that I have talked above. Social Social above. talked have I that examples bystander the to similar very is event This social of situationism of interpretations the with dissatisfied who philosophers Some jections n rao fr hti w d nt oe qipd ih w st o psychological of sets two with equipped come not do we is that for reason One h ohr ad hy eae n ofriy ih h rs o te population. the of rest the with conformity in behave they and others the imental situationism. above ystander Effect' after the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. in Genovese Kitty of murder the after Effect' ystander

plain the situation with social influence, in which individuals observe the observe individuals which in influence, social with situation the plain prove that situationismuntenable.that prove is

- ie iutos However, situations. like - by, if there is a is there if by, - like situ like

ations, one will be using only one psychological one only using be will one ations, - 36 responsive neighbors. Her neighbors, during the during neighbors, Her neighbors. responsive

person in need. in person

d nt hn ti i a legitimate a is this think not do I Therefore, v Therefore, , we can see real life correlations life real see can we , Thus, irtue ethics is decrepit ethicsirtue

I argue that none of none that argue I

murder of 27 Genovese

ese

CEU eTD Collection represent consistency andrepresent stability inthe theirbehaviors; situationdetermines theiracts. end. the until shock giving continue agents the of most room, other the in learner the to shocks electric sever give to not virtuous behave to agent moral a expect observer an Although experiment. are. Milgram's situation the of features the what matter no on, so and consis behave to traits, global has who person, virtuous a from expect would we what However, 29 28 shots' wi 'tropy these shared they and them, photographed perpetrators the because is That Ghraib? c intimidat and frighten to afterslammedwound ofdetaineewhowasinjured military inhiscell,using dogs a the against the stitch to guard police military a allowing rape, with detainees male threatening chair, a detainees, naked on water cold pouring detainees, the pouring and lights chemical breaking were personnel security and military American where Scandal', Ghraib 'Abu as newspapers the in place their found prison. Ghraib Abu in Iraq, in war the in occurred events 'monster' and demeaning Similar hands. naked their with toilets the clean to prisoners the forced they and prisoners, the of faces the to food the smeared guards The harassed they and naked, strip to prisoners the forced They heads. prisoners' the over bags put They prison. the in rules own their put They authority. any by ordered not were Zimbard In hemical light. hemical Seymour Hersh, ―Torture at Abu Ghraib,‖ Abu Ghraibis one but not only example, wecount can My Lai and othersimilar cases. tently with that disposition. We would expect him to behave courageously, honestly, courageously, behave to him expect would We disposition. that with tently There are other are There th their friends.th their o's experiment, guards started to behave swaggeringly and sadistically, and they and sadistically, and swaggeringly behave to started guards experiment, o's 29

How do we have information about these degradations and tortures in Abu in tortures and degradations these about information have we do How

real life life real

e detainees with threats of attack, attack, of threats with detainees e

Maybe they know what is morally right to do, but they just do not do just they but do, to right morally is what know they Maybe

examples which correlate with Zimbardo's Prison Experiment. Prison Zimbardo's with correlate which examples The NewThe Yorker 28

h tig thos things The 37

, beating detainees with a broom handle and handle broom a with detainees beating May 10, 2004. e were happening in Abu Ghraib Ghraib Abu in happening were e and

sodomizing a detainee with a with detainee a sodomizing hs ae s ey iia to similar very is case This phosphoric

the prisoners. the

iud on liquid

ly and ly

CEU eTD Collection sense of such kind of inhumane and immoral acts, and it is very hard to understand what were what understand to hard very is it and acts, immoral and inhumane of kind such of sense stan the in drift a perspective, of loss total a suggest pictures those in faces smiling the anything, "If says, Haney W. Craig prisons. thei over bags with Experiment. prisoners of pictures parallel exact, has he that added he And happened. it that surprised not was he that said Zimbardo shocked, was 2004. 31 2004. 30 4% v. (88% fi not did who subjects than papers her dropped who passerby a help to likely more times 22 were booth phone a in dime a found and have who subjects Isen that study obedient; (1972) Levin's were subjects the 65%of experiment Milgram's in results: following situations. be not do members of security and military kind example, Ghraib Abu from clear is it As sense. such make not does situations in inhabit cannot individuals thus and real not are experiments psychology I that thing The here. discussed be not will it another, or way one in responsibility moral discussion the to relate psychology therefore t atrocity of Perpetrators argument: 26) p. (2007, Murphy's and Doris support can we Maybe these. doing while thinking perpetrators these

Jonathan Schwartz, "SimulatedPrison in '71Showeda FineLine Between 'Normal' 'Monster'," and May 6, Jonathan Schwartz, "SimulatedPrison in '71Showeda FineLine Between 'Normal' 'Monster'," and May 6,

Lastly T world the of rest the although newspapers, the in published were photos these After here is one is here more thatwould objection I before liketoconsider finishing thischapter.

o morally not

) 30 ; Darley and Batson‘s Good Samaritan reported that passersby not in hurry were hurry in not passersby that reported Samaritan Good Batson‘s and Darley ; te oil scooy xeiet ta I ae icse cms p ih the with up comes discussed have I that experiments psychology social the ,

In this case, e have a similar events occurred both in the simulation and the real the and simulation the in both occurred events similar a have e case, this In ae n h lgt f lbl traits global of light the in have

epnil fr hi cnut Atog caatr eae i moral in debates character Although conduct. their for responsible

m liig s ht h agmn wih as ht social that says which argument the that is claiming am ado uae treatment." humane of dard 38

pcly cuy xuig odtos and conditions excusing occupy ypically ad hi bhvo i sae b the by swayed is behavior their and , 31 r heads from his Prison Prison his from heads r It is hard to try to make to try to hard is It nd a dime a nd

CEU eTD Collection valid forthevalid experiments other aswell. are questions Same obedient? not were who 35% the of behavior the explain we can how obedient, not were subjects Milgram's of 100% not why following: the is case, the being this rate. compliance 28% with Australians the were obedient least the that found is it and experimenter; the of orders the to obedient were subjects German the of 85% that 10%). v. (63% hurry in passersby were than agony in is who person groaning a help to likely more 32 be couldthis think not do However, I worries. to these answer have anexact not situationism for benefit no be no is 35% that argue may parties Some traits? character for trace of type some it Is disobedience? their of cause the is What 35%. the have we case, the not is this However, situation. the in change no study. Milgram's in subject each for same see every to expect would we Therefore, are processes and up set experimental the situation; the in change no is There 65%? the of rest the with same the in behave 35% the not and Consistency satisfy not do they And stable. and consistent not are traits global as behavior, individuals' the determines traits global that claim the support to unlikely is it case, this In behavior. individuals' in changes detrimental cause situ the in change slight a even because is that traits, global than rather behaviors determinesindividuals'situationthewhich it is that claimappeal tothe I In thiscase accepted. ex situationism's authority. the obey didn't 35% the does why question didn't they But experimenter. the of directions the in behaved subjects the of 65% the does why

I will discuss Man Mantell (1971), after he repeated Milgram's experiment in d in experiment Milgram's repeated he after (1971), Mantell hr i n sc a ques a such no is There t an important rate, thus they can ignore this population. However, this woul this However, population. this ignore can they thus rate, important an t lnto cnenn te eair o te 5 i Mlrms td ad I and study Milgram's in 65% the of behaviors the concerning planation tell (1971)the in followingchapter as well.

it could be considered as covering the evidence. Frankly, I do I Frankly, evidence. the covering as considered be could it in n h stains ltrtr. vr shlr questioned scholar Every literature. situationism the in tion

each individual to behave in the same way as there is there as sameway the in to behave individualeach 39

Predictive Expectations. But why does does why But Expectations. Predictive

ups ta I cetd the accepted I that Suppose ifferent countries, reported countries, ifferent 32

consideredas My question, My ation can ation d CEU eTD Collection traits. character for explanations emotional appreciate would ethicists virtue not or whether sure not am I But, experimenter. the of instructions the obey to subjects the inhibits this And traits. way 65% behaved inthe theydid. too stalemate same the in been have would traits global of defenders the then case, the been have would this If either. traits global of existence the 33 are there that thinks Doris Harman, Unlike claims. normative two draws he theses, empirical character of traits global supports which research empirical no is there that thinks he because is That globalism. against (ii) naturally and situationism, for (i) argues (2002) discuss this in thenext chapter. important extremely have situations cultural that thi think not do I But morality. of terms in educated less are Germans the and Germans, the and Americans the than we then moral education, endAustraliansare that should more upsaying the morally educated res rates obedience 28% and 85% results, different get we Australia, and Germany in experiment Milgram's redone (1971) Mantell's at look we when However, true. be can education moral about arguments the but sure, not am I i behaviors their changed have wouldn't they then education, moral adequate the taken have would study Levin's and Isen in subjects the if that argue also th situation. habituated the of demands which the to responding education and recognizing moral adequate and receive not did 65% well. as behaviors their

Miller (2003, p.385)

We can also claim that the moral education of the subjects play an important role in role important an play subjects the of education moral the that claim also can We eoe ocuig hs hpe, t ol b ueu t mk sm rmrs Doris remarks. some make to useful be would it chapter, this concluding Before affec that say can We

s is the thesis that we should accept. We always need to keep in mind mind in keep to need always We accept. should we that thesis the is s

A defender of global traits can argue that most of the test subjects, test the of most that argue can traits global of defender A ts of emotions play a crucial role for the 35% rather than global global than rather 35% the for role crucial a play emotions of ts

pectively. If we accept the previous claim about about claim previous the accept we If pectively. 40

effects on individuals' behavior. And I will I And behavior. individuals' on effects --

then they have had to explain why explain to had have they then n the situation of finding a dime. a finding of situation the n 33

A defender of globalism can can globalism of defender A m no both into em . From his his From . CEU eTD Collection agr o oi' iutoim Ta i wy a spotn Goa Tat Instrumentalism, Trait Global supporting am I why is That situationism. Doris' to danger cause might objections two last the And behavior. virtuous emanate to as so traits character his his support on not relying does he by and education theses; moral empirical concerning conclusion exact any make not does he behavior. virtuous to propitious situation about bring people helping at rather but virtues traits. global than character, rather of traits local are there words other In fragmented. are they but traits character 36 Psychology to Ethics'. 35 34 vi traits. character global no are there though even reasons, explanatory the for just traits, character global or virtues, explain to possible is it Instrumentalism, Trait the of orders the obeying Global not to According 65%. was the unlike 'virtuously', 35% behaving were the they because experimenter that say can we Or person. moral a be to were they because disobediently behaving was 35% the that 65%. the for explanation situationism's the hold still can we time same the at and traits, global was of language 35% instrumental the the to appealing by why experiment Milgram's explain can we instance, For too. ethics virtue and reasons. practical situa crude and ethics, virtue of extremes both are which Eliminativism, Trait Global and Realism Trait Global of combination is beginning, the in discussed have I as view, This purposes. glo of talk the accepts which

I amI planning todevelop this inview my Doris (2002, pp. 92 Vranas (2004) w bcue it because ews tionism. I do not see any harm accepting the talk as if there are global character traits for traits character global are there if as talk the accepting harm any see not do I tionism.

- utilizes By defending global trait instrumentalism, we can both utilize situationism utilize both can we instrumentalism, trait global defending By

127) discusses his view with respect to moral education underthe heading of 'From

Thus, Global Trait Instrumentalism should be preferred over the other the over preferred be should Instrumentalism Trait Global Thus,

34 the

n ta mrl dcto should education moral that And bal character traits as if they exist for explanatory and predictive and explanatory for exist they if as traits character bal

xeietl fin experimental

future works, this isjustan preliminary attack. 41 ig o sca pyhlg and psychology social of dings

li ta w sol acp lcl ris as traits local accept should we that claim h bhvo o te 5 b apaig to appealing by 35% the of behavior the

given good moral education so as so education moral good given

not aim at inculcating robust robust inculcating at aim not 36

Maybe we can say can we Maybe

o oein in obedient not it cet the accepts 35

But CEU eTD Collection research, which Jesse Prinz (2009) brings, against situationism. This experimental challenge experimental This situationism. against brings, (2009) Prinz Jesse which research, character global traits. reasons predictive and explanatory for traits character global the of language cause collectivist a or individualist an being course, Of 2009). Prinz in qtd. 2001, (Hofstede collectivists be to tend Asia East be to tend cultures in people culture and individualists, Europe Western in raised people and Europe, Western in people that true is It character. affect to seems collectivism and individualism of degree the in difference character efficacious behaviorally global cross no However, either. traits are character there that conclude situationists And behavior. people‘s in consistency no situation to According situations. changed slightly or situations, different in not or consistently behave individuals whether examine to traits character than rather situations 4.1. trapped in glo as traits these embrace to wants ethicist consis not are they and culture, to culture from vary traits of types these because ethicists virtue by defended be cannot they And for. argues globalism that character of traits the from different are traits of types These obedient. being co being individualistic, being as such traits global of existence the for argues

iutoit scooy xeiet am o eosrt ta w sol consider should we that demonstrate to aim experiments psychology Situationist cross from challenge experimental an examine will I chapter last this In A

Cross moral - relativism. Cultural ExperimentalCultural Challenge againstSituationism

Cross Cultural Research Cultural Cross - ie ris Fr instance For traits. like

4. s in the Mediterranean, South America, South Asia, and Asia, South America, South Mediterranean, the in -

cultural comparisons demonstrate that there might be might there that demonstrate comparisons cultural

ifrne i attds n bhvoa tendencies behavioral and attitudes in differences Chapter 4 Chapter b al traits, then they also need to take the burden of burden the take to need also they then traits, al 42

tent and stable either. However, if virtue virtue if However, either. stable and tent

i i raoal t sy cultural say to reasonable is it ,

, as if there are there if as , llectivistic and llectivistic ism, there is there ism, - cultural

CEU eTD Collection they care their relatives themselves. This is mostly because people think that they have some have they that think people because mostly is This themselves. relatives their care they p their i.e. relatives, aging their send not the do Turkey of in people Most extent. some to culture collectivist a as considered be might culture Turkish self be to tend instance, For p.13). Individuals 2009, (Prinz others to duty of sense a by motivated be to tend collectivists others. the before emotions their express to timid be to tend society collectivist in people hand, other the on attitudes; their about frank Peo 1995). (Triandis show data These obedient. fully were women of 16% and men of 40% rate; compliance 28% the experimenter. to the of orders obedient were subjects German the of 85% that reported (1971) Mantell instance, For countries. different in done is experiment this when visible becomes character However, beca traits character see to us for possible not is it U.S., the of borders the in experiment this consider we When experimenter. the of urges the to obedient were subjects the of 65% that found was it U.S., the in conducted was it isfoundthatpeoplein aremoreIt poorcountries help people likely to than countries. in rich 2009). (Prinz situation economic and helpfulness between correlation strong very a was there this in positive, still but high, very not were helpfulness and collectivism between U.S.(New theNetherlands, than peopleinthe and YorkCity), Although Italy. correlations the Experimenters it. dropped ‗accidentally‘ who stranger a for back pen a give would people if see to watched Experimenters countries. rich in people than helpful more be to tend countries poor in people individualist more in case cultures. the not is this However, relatives. their against duty a of type Milgram‘s infamous obedience experiment was conducted in conducted was experiment obedience infamous Milgram‘s cross on research Another

examined that people in Brazil, Malawi, India, and China were more helpful more were China and India, Malawi, Brazil, in people that examined ple in individualist cultures tend to express their emotions and tend to be to tend and emotions their express to tend cultures individualist in ple And it is found that the least obedient were the Australians with Australians the were obedient least the that found is it And - cult rl orltos Lvn e a. 20) dsoes that discovers (2001), al. et Levine correlations, ural use Milgram used an exclusively American sample. sample. American exclusively an used Milgram use 43

arents, to nursing homes, and and homes, nursing to arents,

various countries. When countries. various - promoting, research, and

CEU eTD Collection agree with him. When we examine the agents from the same country, we do not do we country, same the from agents the examine we When him. with agree cross at look we when ‗nationa character, own 2009). (Prinz their character‘ have nations that claim can we Therefore, authoritarian. hyper ‗ add can we Therefore, experiment. same the in differently perform countries different from people that scientific use. 37 low is consistency intersituational the that claims across variation systematicsee we origins, trait different in behaviors of distribution population the and individuals relevant between of consistency behavioral relation strong a see to fail we that claims (2002) Doris though Even behaviors. consiste only not demonstrate correlations re these fact In countries. different of people the across obedience of rates the in changes dramatic were there countries, different in done character. of traces the find not did over he subjects, experiment American this conducted Milgram When again. experiment obedience Milgram‘s consider us Let p.63). 2002, (Doris individuals‖ particular by performed behaviors different a of distribution the between of measures not are correlations‘ ‗consistency ―These way. following the in answer can Doris evidence. empirical Harman‘ and Doris‘ against challenge empirical an occurs there Therefore, traits. character becausetraits situational delete variables most variance. ofthe

Although some thinks that this term ‗national character‘ connotes a negativemeaning, here it isappropriate for - niiulsi, emn ae xrml oein, n Asrlas r rsltl anti resolutely are Australians and obedient, extremely are Germans individualistic, hs fnig o cross of findings These

- ainlt‘ s nte mjr atr n cross in factor major another as nationality‘ releva nt situations, once we look into cross into look we once situations, nt

personal personal - 37 utrl n cross and cultural

ht hs eprmns o eosrt? rn (09 sy that says (2009) Prinz demonstrate? do experiments these What

ossec; h creain i qeto rfet relationships reflect question in correlations the consistency; - utrl eerh upr te iw ht hr my e global be may there that view the support research cultural population’s individuals. Therefore, Doris seemsTherefore,Doris individuals. ncy in population‘s behavior but also in personal personal in also but behavior population‘s in ncy - ainly caatr em t rapa. ee I Here, reappear. to seems character nationally,

44 eair n ifrn sit different in behavior

- oe xeiet ad te cross other and experiments done because it seems like like seems it because - cultural correlations, e.g. national e.g. correlations, cultural - utrl eerh Aeias are Americans research. cultural oee,we hs experiment this when However,

cross ain, o between not uations, - cultu

faulty see character see ral research research ral

- when he he when cultural s - l CEU eTD Collection en hns o cuaeu (rn 20) Hwvr tee aeois r smlr o the to similar are categories these However, 2009). (Prinz courageous or honest being b or individualist conclusion thatDoris (2002, for p.63)draws situationism. consistenc intrapersonal high, is consistency intersituational if even consistency; intrapersonal about anything say not does consistency intersituational intersituational that demonstrate 38 a and nation, particular a for attribution trait making are we However, authority. the to obedient German particular a call to reasons necessary nor sufficient neither have we think redone not do I Milgram's in obedient were subjects experiment, This experiment. German of 85% that examined (1971) traits? character concerning individuals particular about generalizations make we cultur particular a of individuals many we can how And traits? character global as authority to obedient being and individualism collectivism, counting for enough existen the for evidence as cultures and societies different about suspicious practical r long have they traits: character traits The deliberation. and reasoning classical the be to in supposed traits, are tradition, Character traits. character or virtues of understanding traditional bout a particular bout a individual from nation, are for a particular reasons. People creating practical

ConsiderIndividualism Collectivism and again. debate lhuh are ht cross that agree I Although they objection; an raise might Harman and Doris easoning andbehaviors. eing obedient to an authority are authority an to obedient eing onig h dfeet itiuin ais hc te xeietr from experimenters the which ratios distribution different the counting

maybe, gives us reason to call the German nation 'obedient', but 'obedient', nation German the call to reason us gives maybe, long

- em goa, n rbs dsoiin ta afc people‘s affect that dispositions robust and global, term, ossec i high. is consistency

- apply em goa, n efccos ipstos ht influence that dispositions efficacious and global, term, - utrl eerh hd dut pn iutoim I am I situationism, upon doubt sheds research cultural e, to the individuals of a particular culture, i.e. how can how i.e. culture, particular a of individuals the to e,

ht mnind bv ae seems are above mentioned I that

the findings of a cultural research, which includes which research, cultural a of findings the 45

not character traits because they are not like like not are they because traits character not 38 oee, e hud oe ht high that note should we However,

might say that that say might y might still be low be still might y ce global traits global ce being a collectivist, a being . Are these results these Are .

like traditional traditional like --

which is the the is which Mantell CEU eTD Collection mistake, making they are fundamental error the attribution this However, reasons. other of because or elders, their of care take generally people Turkish because helpful be to man Turkish a on. so and 'reserved', English the 'neat', Swiss the 'clean', Dutch the working', to said are Italians instance, For culture. popular our of part lives. their ease to everything almost about stereotypes 40 or actions the 39 in differences of result the not was Hindu in versus differentiation American the of explanation that demonstrate to comparison control a made Miller subjects, of pro explanations contextual invoked for time the of 22% only to explanations appealed contextual subjects U.S the although And time. the of 14% only them invoked subjects de for time the of 32% reasons contextual invoked subjects Hindu instance, For explanations. contextual/situational for results interesting have we However, 22%. explanations dispositional to appealed subjects Hindu while behaviors, explain to as so 35% explanations dispositional to appealed subjects U.S. time. the of 15% only them invoked subjects Hindu hand other the on behaviors, deviant or negative explain to time the of 45% dispositions general invoked subjects U.S. oriented pe individualistic, that found is It dark'. was 'it and help' to there one no was 'there as such context, versus clumsiness,and generosity as such dispositions,general to corresponding Their done. recently had well knew they someone that things 'wrong' or 'good', for, account to then and describe, to subjects her asked Miller factors. contextual or situational of terms in events error. attribution

I amI Ross using and Nisbett (1991, pp. 185 Milgram (1992,

explanations w explanations on ilr 18) odcs rsac wt Hnu i Ida n h fundamental the on India in Hindus with research a conducts (1984) Miller Joan p. 200), 'Nationality andConformity', 40

h hs hw ta Hind that shown has She

ere coded into broad categories of which the most relevant were those those were relevant most the which of categories broad into coded ere

49% of the time. After getting these results from two sample two from results these getting After time. the of 49% - 6) for quoting Miller's (1984) research. is 46 s r mr lkl ta Aeias o explain to Americans than likely more are us exactly the point where the observers make make observers the where point the exactly The Individual in aSocial World

viant behaviors, on the other hand U.S. U.S. hand other the on behaviors, viant ait fntoa seetps is stereotypes national of variety A -- - social behaviors, Hindu subjects subjects Hindu behaviors, social

as I havediscussedas I above. e vltl' Gras 'hard Germans 'volatile', be

oiie r pro or positive .

39 We can expect can We

- social rson - - CEU eTD Collection 186). p. 1991, Nisbett and (Ross themselves generated they that behaviors their to applied have behav differen cultural her concerning results consistent got she And subject. Hindu her of behavior the explain to be to behaviors 41 psychological the is "this 203). p. 1992, (Milgram behavior: behavior" cultural all underlying mechanism of standards common to conform, or adhere, men if at looking by not or exists culture national a whether detect to way good a is conformity Norway. and France countries: European two in conformity to be applied characteristics, measure particular thestudy ofnational andin to see ifonecould con (1961) Milgram Stanley clearer. ways construe cultures in the world thattruly are different base." agai anything argue didn't andnotableexplanationsdeterminants behaviors ofbehavior. ofindividuals' non the in influences, situational (1991), Nisbett situationally more 1991, Nisbett and (Ross explaining behavior" determined be may simply they insight, situationist "greater be not showing may Hindus the that argue to possible is it time, same the at But West. the in than d in role important an play factors situational that possible is It West. the and East the between distinction the concerning conclusions draw to enough not is study one just However, Americans. the than error attribution less make they or error,

Ross and Nisbett (1991), p. 186.

iors with the same proportions of dispositional and contextual explanations which they which explanations contextual and dispositional of proportions same the with iors Let me consider another important cross important another consider me Let at make not do Hindus the that true be might it claimed, (1984) Miller As explained (Ross and Nisbett 1991, p. 186). p. 1991, Nisbett and (Ross explained c hptei: h Aeia sbet epand h Hindu the explained subjects American the hypothesis: e

nst

Prinz's argument, but I tried to support the view that "different that view the support to tried I but argument, Prinz's ducts a research to see if experimental techniques could techniques experimental if see to research a ducts 47 p. 186). p.

- cultural experiment so as to make my view view my make to as so experiment cultural - etr cnet, r bt powerful both are contexts, Western But I think that, supporting Ross and Ross supporting that, think I But

She asked her American subjects American her asked She triig eair n h East the in behavior etermining 41 iga ws hnig that thinking was Milgram

Milgram's w Milgram's With this claim, I as inspired inspired as - generated tribution

CEU eTD Collection of three other lines matched it. In some trials, all of the confederates gave wrong answers. wrong gave confederates the of all trials, some In it. matched lines other three of asked were they and length certain of line a shown was subjects of dozen half of group experimenter the of confederates applied (1961) this research tocross Milgram And conform. to person a affect could group majority a from pressure social the extent what to the investigate to was aim Asch's Experiment. Conformity (1951) Asch's from see Milgram (1992, pp.201 42 205 pp. 1992, (Milgram trials critical the of 50% on group the to conformed subjects French the and trials; ex first the In representation. geographical good a and background, educational age, of terms in other the to similar was group each the of sample the And subjects. French twenty and Norwegian twenty for suited better they because lines conformed leastonce ofparticipantsand 25% at neverconformed. all which in trials, critical 12 the over And trials. 18 in majority, the of answers incorrect explicitly the with this in placed were who participants the of 32% follow: the with defending along than went rather decision subjects majority's the of amount large a pressure, social a of type this under that found Asch experiments, the After trials. critical i.e. trials, 12 on answer wrong the gave tr 18 In p.202). 1992, (Milgram decision own his announce to had he before group the of most of answers the heard he that placed so was subject naive the And

I will not give thedetails about theset up here. Itis similarvery Asch's to Conformity Experiment. details For iga cnutd smlr eerh hwvr h eetd o s tns ahr than rather tones use to elected he however, research, similar a conducted Milgram A In c' suy te av sbet a pae i a ru f ie ujcs h were who subjects five of group a in placed was subject naive the study, sch's periment the Norwegian students conformed to the group on 62% of the critical the of 62% on group the to conformed students Norwegian the periment - 6).

In the second trial of the experiment, the subjects were told that told were subjects the experiment, the of trial second the In

f h cneeae gv te norc ase, 5 o participants of 75% answer, incorrect the gave confederates the of - 14; 1961, pp. 45

- oee, h nie ujc hd o da bu ta. The that. about idea no had subject naive the however, the aims of his research. his of aims the cultural environment.cultural - 51).

their own unmistakable observations. The results results The observations. unmistakable own their 48

situation

The first experiment included experiment first The

went along and conformed and along went ials total, the confederates the total, ials

the results the which CEU eTD Collection xeiet ta I ae icse. hr ae las gop f esn h bhvs in behaves who person of majority, conformity withthe and thereis another groupofscapegoats group a always are There discussed. have I that experiments France. 48% was it and 56%, was it Norway, in higher was conformity of level the that examined 209). p. 1992, (Milgram findings original the alter might this if see to itself of set the of good us gives research systematic the of data empirical the because, is That trait. that with tra character global particular that have nation particular that of individuals the that argue hardly, can, we character, of traits global a as a nation particular of cohesiveness accept we though Even easier. lives our make to reasons, of practical our level high this accept even stereotype structure only we can way, that In nation. particular that of trait we a as cohesiveness but cohesive, highly Norwegians the call can d situations, or context, social the and nation, a of dynamics the create factors situational level, ground the On on. so and cultural ecological, economical, as such situations, of features various by i It behaviors. individuals' on effects have cases, some in which, characteristics of the sort some both have nations that French true the and is Norwegian It experiments. these from situationism of favor in for conclusions n is Milgram Although experiments. the in conformity less represented They French. the for case not is situation the Ant conformity. of degree high a with relationship tight has cohesiveness social that see to surprise a not is it and cohesive, strongly are 212). (p. them around those they of interests and needs the and to attuned identification, group of feeling deep a have Norwegians that says experiments experiments W

The results of these experiments are similar to the results of the social psychology social the of results the to similar are experiments these of results The hat does this experiment tell us about the characteristics of nations? Milgram (1992) (1992) Milgram nations? of characteristics the about us tell experiment this does hat etermine the individuals behaviors, or have effects on individuals behaviors. We behaviors. individuals on effects have or behaviors, individuals the etermine , the experimenters were concerned about the importance of the experiment the of importance the about concerned were experimenters the ,

would be ap be would plied to the design of aircraft safety signals. With these second these With signals. safety aircraft of design the to plied s also true that national characteristics are affected are characteristics national that true also s 49

ot a situationist, we can derive derive can we situationist, a ot it and they behave consistently behave they and it

Norwegian societ Norwegian .

In the end they end the In y is highly highly is y s for s

for for CEU eTD Collection f h cross the of of trait same the have or share nation particular a of individuals' the that argue to us help not does traits. character global of existence whet sure not am still I However, t global stable and consistent of existence the about skeptical be to grounds 43 and economic situationssatisfying However, character. situations economic between correlation good find may we study, a of kind such After helpfulness. countries, which experiments rich further of be should there think, I on. so and peoplecountries, poor of people poor or rich and countries poor or rich the compares research this whether know not do we because and exact helpfulness an between draw condition to data variables. adequate give not economic does quoting and Prinz's that helpfulness research the between However, correlation good a find to unsurprising that claims 2009). (Prinz Italy and Netherlands, the City), York (New States United the including helpful, less were cultures individualist many China; and including collectivism, for high rate that cultures in helpful especially

Samethe 'rich' for caseaswell.

character. one concerning worry other my explain to like would I chapter, this finishing Before and helpfulness and then, maybe, we can argue for the existence of global traits of traits global of existence the for argue can we maybe, then, and helpfulness and 43 p eople in poor countries tend to be to tend countries poor in eople

- o s o eemn a elh rlto bten cnmc iutos and situations economic between relation healthy a determine to as so utrl eerh etoe aoe Lvn (01 fud ht epe were people that found (2001) Levine above. mentioned research cultural

compare the poor people of the rich countries, and the poor people of poor of people poor the and countries, rich the of people poor the compare

I do not find the relation among collectivism, individualism, helpfulness helpfulness individualism, collectivism, among relation the find not do I

with thefrom data Levine(2001) It is true that the nations have their own character, but this this but character, own their have nations the that true is It e o nt e hud cet rn' cam aot the about claims Prinz's accept should we not or her collectivism, or helpfulness and individualism. That is is That individualism. and helpfulness or collectivism, 50 more helpful than people in rich countries. rich in people than helpful more

And, by relying on these findings, Prinz findings, these on relying by And, .

Brazil, Malawi, India, India, Malawi, Brazil, raits of character. of raits

It is It CEU eTD Collection reasons. Firstly, it is not clear whether the trai whethernot clear Firstly, is it reasons. cross at look we when reappear traits global situations, across behaviors individuals' in stability i there as traits, character global than rather situations by determined are individuals' that behaviors situationismeven thoughdemonstrates that argues He situationism. 4.2. exist. not do really traits global though even easier; lives our make to reasons, practical for it do can We situationism. for traits global as characteristics nation's accepting of harm no is there i particular the to traits these apply to reason good any us give not does this But people. of set a to words other in culture, or nation a to apply will they traits, global as them accept we if Even situationism. for problem serious any think not do I Secondly, tradition. Aristotelian to according situations the across vary not should it and stable, and consistent be must virtue A relativism. moral them cul from vary traits these because is That traits. character global as them embrace cannot ethicists virtue traits, character global as them accept we if Even character. of traits global as considered be

- utrly Atog hsve em apaig msetc about skeptic am I appealing, seems view this Although culturally.

n hscatr cniee n miia calne rmJsePiz(09 against (2009) Prinz Jesse from challenge empirical an considered I chapter, this In Conclusi ture to culture and virtue ethicists acceptance of these traits as global would lead lead would global as traits these of acceptance ethicists virtue and culture to ture on

ts, such as being collectivist or individualist, canbeing collectivist or as ts, such ndividuals of that set, or nation or culture. or nation or set, that of ndividuals 51

s no consistency and consistency no s it because of two two of because it these traits cause traits these

And CEU eTD Collection fragmentation of character, and he argues that there local there that argues he and character, of fragmentation the of idea the with comes Doris character. of traits local Doris' discussed have I chapter, argued both which situationism, of understanding by supported cross be empirically can which character of traits of types some consider can we Empirical challenge does threaten not situationism. Prinz' important and recent some discussed have I lastly, And them. taken answered and account into situationism against have objections I chapter, third the In objections. some against rath but traits character robust of terms in not people evaluate should we Therefore, psychology. social from research empirical by supported are character, of traits global unlike are, traits er in terms of local, s local, of terms in er - Eprcl hleg aant iutoim Ad da te ocuin ht this that conclusion the draw I And situationism. against Challenge Empirical s utrl eerh I te is catr I ae icse Harma discussed have I chapter, first the In research. cultural In this paper, I defended Global Trait Instrumentalism, and I draw the conclusion that conclusion the draw I and Instrumentalism, Trait Global defended I paper, this In ituation - specific traits. specific CONCLUSION 52

And I defended the existence of local traits local of existence the defended I And

globalism

traits rather than global traits. Local traits. global than rather traits

s o psil. n h second the In possible. not is ' ad Doris' and n's CEU eTD Collection JohnDarley, Badhwar, NeeraK.2009: 'The Milgram Experiments, Learned Athanassoulis, Nafsika 1993: Annas, Julia DavidMantell, M.1971:Potential Germany‘. ‗The forViolencein V.,Ara Levine, Robert Norenzayan, andKaren 2001:Philbrick ‗Cross E.1987:Larmore, Charles J.1991:Kupperman, Joel 2004:Kamtekar, Rachana ‗Situationism on ofVirtue Ethics the Content OurCharacter‘. and AliceIsen, M. andPaulaF.Levin1972: Cookies ‗Effect ofFeelingGood onHelping: and Hofstede, 2001: Geert at AbuHersh, Seymour2004:'Torture Ghraib'. 1999:Hursthouse, Rosalind Harsthorne, Hugh andMarkA.May1928: 1999:‗MoralHarman, PsychologyGilbert Meets SocialPsy Michelle 2012:Grier, 'Kant's CritiqueofMetaphysics', Genovese, Kitty: Doris, John and Stephen2006:‗MoralPsychology:Empirical Approaches‘, Stich Doris, John. 1998: ‗Persons,Situations, andVirtueEthics‘. ofCharacter'.2001. 'The Indispensability Ethics Kindness‘. in Deceit 2009: 'Skepticism Traits'. aboutCharacter Fundamental Attribution Error‘. Philosophy Reached at May 20,2012. URL =

M. and C. Daniel Batson.M. andC.Daniel 1973:‗From AStudyof Jerusalem toJericho: , Lack Personalityof Character: andMoralBehavior

114, pp. 458 The Journal ofEthics The Journal

. Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Strangers‘. Wiki Article New York: 71,

Journal ofPersonalityand Psychology Social - (Summer Edition), Edward2012 N.Za The Morality ofThe Morality Happiness 112.

pp. 656 Aristotelianof the society, Culture’s Consequences: Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Behaviors, Values, Dispositional HelpingBehavior‘. Variables In 1999: 'A toHar response

on John Doris‘s Lack Doris‘s ofCharacter‘. on John Character

Pattern ofMoralComplexity A - 491. On Virtue Ethics Journal ofCross cross Nations Research, Macmillian. -

, 27, 677. .

pp. 100 . Oxford:Press OxfordUniversity , 13,pp. 257 References

71, pp.636 Proceedings of Aristotelian Society

. Thousand Oaks:Sage. - Studies Nature Character inthe of 108.

(Winter2008 Edition), Edward N.Zalta (ed.), . Oxford: Oxford University Publishing. - 53 . New YorkandOxford: Oxford University Cultural Psychology The New Yorker

man: Virtue Ethics andCharacterman: Traits'. Ethics Virtue Vol. c,pp.215 Philosophy, - The Journal ofEthicsThe Journal Philosophy andPhenomenological 289. - 642.

The Stanford EncyclopediaThe Stanford of . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity lta

Nous chology: Virtue Ethics and the

(ed.), forthcoming(ed.), URL = 76, pp.239 Philosophy Helplessness – , May10, 2004. , 21, pp.384 - , 32,pp.504 221. metaphysics/> . Cambridge: Cambridge

, 32, pp. Journal of Social of Issues Journal

Journal of Journal ral -

Cultural Differences in , 13,pp.235 - – psych and 250

, 99, pp. 315 543 , andCharacter - - , vol.1 388. . 530.

- -

Institutions

emp/>. 560. Personality Personality The

247.

Studies

- 331.

CEU eTD Collection E. 1991:Ross, LeeandRichard Nisbett Jesse Prinz, 2009: ‗The Normativity Challenge: RealityWhy Empirical Will ofTraits the Not ChristianMiller, 2003:'Social Psychology and Ethics'.Virtue Milgram, Stanley 2007:'Character, Webber, Jonathan Global, Local'. Peter2004:Review,JohnDoris'Vranas, 'TheUpton, Candace2009b: Structure ofCharacter'. Upton, Candace2009 C.1995: Harry Triandis, Sreenivasan, Gopal2002: Jonathan2004:Schwartz, '71 in 'Simulated Prison ShowedaFineLineBetween 'Normal'and Sabini, Woods, 1986: 'Intuitionand Michael Perception inAristotle's Ethics'. URL=

Obedience Obedience to Authority

371 of Ethics Philosophy

in ‗The 1963: 'Behavioral Study ofObedience'. - - 68. . - Ethics‘. From website: Prinz‘s Jesse URL= . 378 562. New York:McGraw a : 'VirtueEthics andMoral Psychology: TheSituationism Debate'

, 13,pp. 103 , 13,pp. 145

Individualism andCollectivism Nor 2004. ‗Errors about‗Errors VirtueTheory Errors: andTraitAttribution‘. l ver 2005:ver ofCharacter? Situationism‗Lack Critiqued‘. , 4,pp. 145 mativity Challenge: Cultural PsychologyProvides the Real New York Times Journal Journal - - . New York: HarperandRow. 115. 173. - 166. The person and The Situation: PerspectiveThe person of andTheSituation: Social Lack ofCharacter - of Ehics Hill.

. New York:McGraw

, 13,pp. 117 Utilitas The Journal ofEthicsThe Journal . Boulder:Westview. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology , 19, pp.430 . FromPeter Vranas' website: - The Journal ofEthicsThe Journal rs/dorisreview.pdf>. 144.

s forVirtue Ethics'. - Hill. Hill. Oxford Studies in - 434. , 13,pp.175

Ethics

, 7,pp. Mind - . 193.

The The , , ,