Character realism is the view that many people have and act from character. This short paper attempts to articulate and draw attention to the underappreciated connection between our commonplaces about good friendship and character realism.

It seems like people have character traits that explain a good deal of their behavior. Call a theory character realism just in case it vindicates this folk assumption. Recently, Christian Miller has argued that the way to reconcile character realism with decades of psychological research is to adopt metaphysical reductivism about character traits. Some contemporary psychological theories of character and virtue seem to implicitly endorse such reductivism; others resist reduction of traits to finer-grained mental components or processes; and still others (...) remain silent on the metaphysics of traits. In this paper we argue that character realists do not have to, and in fact should not, be reductivists. We introduce a theoretical dilemma for reductivist character realism. Then we explain how nonreductivists can meet the standards for empirical adequacy laid out by Miller and others. Further, we argue, hylomorphic nonreductivism avoids the theoretical dilemma that threatens reductivism. It also fits nicely the major commitments of recent models of virtue in psychology. Thus, character realists should not be reductivists. (shrink)

In 1964, the British psychologist Hans Jürgen Eysenck published Crime and Personality, the book that set forth his theory of the criminal as a psychopathic poor conditioner. Crime and Personality went through three editions, and even those who vehemently rejected the theory acknowledged it as the most highly articulated and influential biological explanation of crime of its time. Yet today Eysenck’s name is fading from criminological memory - and none too soon, in the opinion of critics who continue to anathematize (...) him as a self-serving showman, charlatan, and dangerous right-wing conservative. This article addresses four questions. Who was Eysenck? What did he say about the causes of crime? Why was he (and why does he continue to be) such a controversial figure? And did he contribute any ideas of lasting significance to criminology? The answers open a window onto the late 20th-century revival of biocriminology, a return to biological explanations that continues into the present and seems to be accelerating. They also reveal characteristics of criminology itself as a knowledge enterprise that has changed over time. (shrink)

The focus of this special issue is on moral psychology and the goals of moral education. My focus will be considerably narrower in addressing the following question: In light of the situationist movement in psychology and philosophy, what should be the goal(s) of character education? The main conclusion will be that the central goal of character education should be modified in a certain way to make it more empirically informed. But not to worry, as this modification should be amenable to (...) most contemporary supporters of character education. (shrink)