We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
"Good character is made up of three parts," according to a British think tank report released last August: "a sense of personal agency or self-direction; an acceptance of personal responsibility; and effective regulation of one's own emotions, in particular the ability to resist temptation or at least defer gratification."
Why it takes a think tank to figure that those things are foundations of good moral character is beyond me. As Sissy notes in "It's the character, stupid," McGuffey's Reader, if not Socrates, has been saying those things for quite a while.
But those things, in themselves, are not "good character." An effective Mafia Don or a dedicated Jihadist probably has those "three parts" too. What I define as "good character" depends on the code which is placed on those foundations, and the extent to which behavior is consistent with it.
That think tank was trying to come up with a morality-free, "value-free," psychologized concept of character.
Why on earth would they waste time trying to do something like that?
Why would they try to do something like that? Because they believe deeply that there is no objective morality, but they sense that the world will not work at all well unless people possess something very like what used to be called "character." They're casting about for a firm place to stand and can't find it.
There's one kind of belief system that gains respect in their intellectual world, and then there's another that leads to behavior they can bear to be around. Their most esteemed colleagues profess belief systems that sound sophisticated, but do not result in behavior that would make them trustworthy where it really counts: when you loan them money, when you leave your purse out in their presence, when you tell them something in confidence.
But I'm just spouting views that were expressed a long time ago, and much more clearly, in C.S. Lewis's "Abolition of Man." For a fictional treatment, the same author's "That Hideous Strength" is a good fairy-tale read.