The Character Gap: How Good Are We? Christian B. Miller. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.

If you are looking for an accessible, practical introduction to moral psychology and ethics for undergraduate, Professional Military Education classes, or the general interest reader, look no further. Philosopher and psychology researcher Christian Miller’s The Character Gap distills much of his own scholarly work, as well as the thoughts and writing of others, into a readable, accessible volume with practical examples, citations from important studies, and popular culture references that bring alive questions of moral character and development. This volume asks us not just to consider others’ moral character, but also reflect upon our own, the gaps in it, and how we can improve it.

Overview

The Character Gap is a three-part volume on character and ethics centered on the questions: to what extent can we be good and how do we achieve this aim? Part I addresses what character is and why it matters. Part II addresses empirical studies in moral psychology regarding issues like helping, harming, lying, and cheating, detailing what the evidence shows about how people act. The central thesis of the book, as the title suggests, is that a significant gap exists between how we think of ourselves and our moral characters, and the hard reality of our actual behavior. Part III explores the question of how we can improve ourselves to lessen the gap. This includes some practical strategies, discussions of role models and their role, and even theological discussion of the Divine role.

Miller notes that we are not Hitler, an embodiment of complete vice, but neither are we Gandhi, an embodiment of complete virtue.

In the preface, Miller contextualizes this book in the larger discussion of the Character Project and his work at Wake Forest University, which helps place the book in its broader context of character development work.[1] The book gives the audience a mixed picture—as reflected on the cover art—of the state of moral character and our society. Miller notes that we are not Hitler, an embodiment of complete vice, but neither are we Gandhi, an embodiment of complete virtue. It is complicated. With its blend of theory, empirical studies, narratives, philosophical argument, and practical strategies, this book is readable and engaging to a wide audience. It is also worth thinking about this book in the context of discussions and debates on ethics, especially considering the focus on character in business, the military, and education.

Commentary and Questions

I am a huge fan of the book. I have used it in classes, leader development, and faculty development in my ethics work. I especially use it to teach virtue ethics—one of four moral perspectives that I teach. The chapter on virtue ethics and the treatment of Aristotle is straightforward, readable, and clear for non-philosophers whether war college students, flag officers, or faculty members. The empirical studies and examples also lend concrete context and provide a good starting point for discussion and reflection on the reader’s own character and gaps.

It is past time to think about character in respect to collectives, organizations, and communities of practice since they have some marks of personhood.

In the spirit of a fellow ethicist working in this area, there are three critical issues for consideration. First, this book—like most others on morality and character—focuses on the character of individuals to the exclusion of discussion of organizations, except for individuals in these organizations. It is past time to think about character in respect to collectives, organizations, and communities of practice since they have some marks of personhood.[2] The Enron scandal, the dishonesty documented in the Lying to Ourselves report, and other ethical failings and crises simply cannot be addressed by only looking at individual moral character because these events are all embedded in organizations and their cultures. This is not a criticism of only this book; indeed, there are occasional hints of this kind of discussion at times, but it needs much more depth to wrestle with these issues. Miller notes the organizational or cultural contexts in the chapters on helping and harming especially, but the chapters on how to address the gaps in character focus on the individual, their choices, habits, and practice.

A second question is how we ought to think about moral character. Strength of character, character as endurance or toughness, and the idea of character as following one’s moral compass are some popular models that appear in the book. They are also models that I have criticized in my own thinking and writing on these issues mostly on the grounds that they are too simplistic and thus fail to get at the communal nature of character because they only see it as an individual accomplishment or failing.[3]

Our role models expand our moral world in ways that can help us see and address character gaps.

In contrast, I think the idea of character as narrative, with debts to pragmatist philosopher John Dewey and others, is a better approach for many reasons, including that it fits better with the model of character that Miller is trying to get us to take up, especially in Part III of this book. In this view, character is an evolving narrative process, involving the social context and other people that is best understood in terms of narratives--both ours and those of others.[4] Role models are certainly important to this account of character and support Miller’s points about the nature of character as well as his suggestions for addressing gaps in any character narrative. For Miller, role models can help us develop our moral imagination as we see the world through the eyes of our role model, and we can also live alongside  and take up the practices and habits of our role models.[5] Our role models expand our moral world in ways that can help us see and address character gaps. However, I think that we also need to address what kinds of gaps to avoid and what kinds of gaps to embrace for authenticity, compassion, and life in a community. A narrative approach can help us with those kinds of judgments.

Finally, there is the problem of moral failure, which much of the character discussion views in terms of ignorance or weakness of will. However, there is a much more complicated story including vice, moral disengagement—the moral analogy to cognitive bias—or a failure in deliberation and judgment, which could involve inexperience or a host of other problems. Some of these issues are made worse by the communal aspect of our moral lives; this is a point that this book does mention on occasion, but needs more treatment because moral failure is not simply about one individual. The empirical studies that Miller uses, in fact, point to various social and cultural influences and pressures, in addition to the cognitive issues listed above, that frame and impact our moral lives. The hints of a broader, more social account of character and its gaps are tantalizing and deserve deeper exploration.

Conclusion

None of the issues highlighted above undermine the value of the book, which is a highly accessible starting point to entering discussions about character and ethics in philosophy and psychology. The Character Gap will be of particular interest to those who are concerned with character and character development as an approach to ethical leadership in education, business, leadership, government and the military.

Pauline Shanks Kaurin holds a PhD in Philosophy from Temple University, specializing in military ethics, just war theory, and applied ethics. She serves as the Stockdale Chair and Professor of Professional Military Ethics at the U.S. Naval War College in the College of Leadership and Ethics. She is the author of Achilles Goes Asymmetrical: The Warrior, Military Ethics and Contemporary Warfare and On Obedience: Contrasting Philosophies for Military, Citizenry and Community. The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent the U.S. Naval War College, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Have an idea for your own article? Follow the logo below, and you too can contribute to The Bridge:

Enjoy what you just read? Please help spread the word to new readers by sharing it on social media.

Header Image: The Army Ethic, West Point, NY, 2001 (CWO Cory McDonald).

Notes:

[1] Miller, Christian B.. The Character Gap: How Good Are We? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), xiiii. For more on the Character Project see http://www.thecharacterproject.com/.

[2] See Michael Boylan, Business Ethics. (Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), 51-81. Depending upon the view, they may have rationality, a decision making process, exhibit intentions, make moral judgments and can articulate reasons to other moral agents, See especially French and Goodpaster in Boylan.

[3] On strength of character, see https://shankskaurin.wordpress.com/2019/04/13/rethinking-character-part-i-of-iii/ On Moral Compass see https://shankskaurin.wordpress.com/2019/04/19/why-your-moral-compass-is-off/.

[4] See https://shankskaurin.wordpress.com/2019/04/28/character-as-narrative-part-iii/.

[5] Miller, The Character Gap, 201.