CS = bedrock of the human condition and a route to psycholigcal good life

Aspirational, not a taxonomy

Based on a overall structure of moral virtues (historically reviewed)

Classification of CS:
Check about multi-axial CS classification

CS = individual differences (dimensional approach)

a1. Virtues

a) Overall scheme (conceptual hierarchy) a2. Character Strengths

a3. Situational themes

Brainstorming at CS level
b) Generating and deciding upon entries
Introduction Literature search

1. CS contributes to individual fulfillment (eudaimonia)

2. Each CS is morally valued in its own right

Foundation of classification 3. CS practice must not diminish other people

4. CS antonyms must not be felicitous

5. Traits like
c) Criteria for CS
6. Exhaustive sub-categories

7. Social agreement about CS

8. Good exemplars (models) of a CS

9. Bad exemplars (models) of CS

10. Institutions support different CS

1. Forming a list of virtues within each influential cultural system

Purpose of ubiquitous virtues search
Character Strengths and Virtues (I) 2. Compare lists and check for coincidences

Confucianism
China
Taoism

Budhism
South Asia
Traditions reviewed Hinduism
Universal virtues?
Greek philosophy

West Judeo-Christianism

Islam

1) Strong convergence across time, place and intelectual tradition about CORE VIRTUES

Conclussions 2) Enormous variability across cultures in terms of what the culture esteems

The ubiquity of these CORE VIRTUES suggests universality and a moral theory in evolutionary terms

Allport Personality traits (amoral)

Eriksson 1st attempt

Maslow, Greenberg and Jahoda Characteristics of self-actualized/mature/mentally-health person

Ryff Six well-being point of convergence

Big-5 and Cawley, Martin & Johnson Lexical approach to personality and character
PSYCHOLOGY
Kohlberg Moral reasoning = close to CS fairness
Previous classifications
Vaillant Psicodinamic defenses mechanism

Schwartz Universally recognized values

CS classification = social science equivalent to virtue ethics

Yearley (1990); Rachels (1999)

PHILOSOPHY