Character Versus Action, Research Paper Example

Introduction

People have dissimilar ways of rating politicians. Some believe that an individual’s character is significant because it tells a lot about the actions of an individual. In addition, some have thought that character does not determine one’s actions. Their actions depend on their willpower and not character. There are various theories that describe various aspects of the human character. The analysis of character versus action reveals Kant’s view on human actions and the principles of a utilitarian.

Personality is a regular behavioral pattern that originates from the inner self. The Freudian theory focuses on the task of the unconscious mind. The theory states that the id is a part of personality that aims at getting things done. The ego reflects on the aftermath of actions while the superego identifies social rules. The theorist claims that personality is a result of the conflict among the ego, id, and superego. The theory relates well with politicians because each has their motives for ruling. Many politicians believe that they have a duty to meet the needs of the citizens. Their struggle to meet these requirements changes their character. They hide their characters through their actions. They want to fulfill political roles within their society. The ego also explains the characters of politicians. They struggle to impress people because they want to emerge as winners. They do not want to lose their political seats to other people. The superego of a politician changes their personality because of their desire to recognize social rules. The conflict among these three aspects shapes their character. Some cannot balance these aspects, so they end up losing. They lack the potential to govern many people because an excellent personality emerges when an individual has the ability to balance the id, personality, and superego. According to the Cognitive theory, an individual’s thoughts shape their feelings, which in turn determine their actions. Character formation depends on an individual’s current feelings. Politicians think about various ways to attract voters. The thought process makes them develop feelings that may disguise their character. The Social Learning theory also relates to the human character. These theorists claim that people learn from those around them. They modify their behaviors according to circumstances. Politicians who seek votes familiarize themselves with the areas they want to govern, so they acquire habits that change their characters.

Kant is a theorist who feels that actions create change in the world (McCarty, 14). He would prefer character to actions because he believes that an individual’s determination enhances his actions. Actions are a result of the desires of the mind. Kant would want to analyze an individual’s character to determine the most appropriate candidate because his actions depend on the desires of the mind. A utilitarian will look at the actions of the individuals. They consider the consequences of people’s actions, so they would not find value in evaluating a politician’s character. They want the world to be a favorable place for human beings (Hinman, 160). They do not like discrimination, so they would not like a leader with such qualities. Discrimination is an aspect portrayed through the actions of an individual.

Conclusion

The character of individuals enhances their actions. Some people place more value on actions and not character. Various theories determine the relationship between character and action. A utilitarian is an individual who thinks that an individual’s character has no impact on other people but actions affect many people.

 References

Hinman, Lawrence M. Ethics. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 2007. Print. Page 160.

McCarty, Richard. Kant’s Theory of Action. Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 14.