Character is Destiny, ch 1 - Thoughts

I read the first chapter of Character is Destiny yesterday. The main points seemed to be these: 1) there is a difference, not always recognized now, between personality and character; 2) we (and we alone) can change our character, or make the decision to; and 3) it is impossible to improve society without first improving personal character.

The reading also got me started on this thought:

Let's say Joe, a man of good repute and good character, is accused of stealing. "Oh, that's impossible," says his good friend Chloe, "Joe could never do such a thing--it's not in his nature."

The Christian and the Humanist have different replies to this. The Humanist says, "You're right that evil as such is not a basic part of human nature, but--well--we all get into a tight spot sometimes, and it's certainly possible that he did."

The Christian says, "You're wrong; evil is a basic part of all our natures. We're all capable of it. But good character (such as Joe's) is good character because it can be relied on not to. You see, I could, in theory, willingly jump off a skyscraper tomorrow. But the odds against it are so great that it's well-nigh impossible. True character is reliable."

The Humanist thinks the man is basically good, and then decides not to trust him; the Christian knows he is basically evil, and decides to trust him in spite of it.