An Argument Against “Moral Character” by Travis B. #7

The quality of the activity that results from the rational-emotive response set does not justify rule One. The nature of the response and the post-hoc explanation for its justification is inherently unique to the individual. The frame of the context-stimulus is neither determines the resulting rational-emotive response that follows nor can it be used as a post-hoc analysis to justify it. The behavior that follows the rational-emotive response set is not explained by the context-stimulus alone; only in the mind of the individual is the response to the context-stimulus deterministic.

The context-stimulus is capable of producing an infinite set of rational-emotive responses depending on the moral quality of the individual. The so-called character of the individual thus places a primary bias in the individual’s selection of the resulting behavioral set. This bias determines the nature and thus quality of the rational-emotive perception of the stimulus that precedes it. This perception is not naturally determined by the context-stimulus but is determined by the character and thus nature of the individual. This same character thus determines but does not justify the behavioral response that follows.