"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?