Moral character occupies a contested and generative position within the depth-psychology corpus. The term is not received as a fixed ethical category but is subjected to genealogical, archetypal, and clinical scrutiny that repeatedly unsettles its conventional meaning. Hillman stands as the most insistent revisionist: in his reading, character is not equivalent to moral exemplarity—a person of pronounced character may be reprehensible by conventional standards, while a morally upright individual may be characterologically empty. This dissociation of character from morality is one of the corpus’s signature moves, and it places depth psychology in productive tension with both Victorian will-ethics (Mill, Emerson, James) and Stoic virtue theory. The Stoic tradition, represented here by Graver, Inwood, Long, and Sedley, insists that character is the proper seat of moral responsibility precisely because it is the stable dispositional matrix from which actions issue, even as Chrysippus acknowledges that character is largely formed by external causes. Damasio introduces a neurological dimension, demonstrating through clinical cases that moral reasoning can be formally intact while practical moral behavior collapses—a finding that resonates with Jung’s observation that unconscious moral failure is punished by nature no less than conscious transgression. Williams and Cairns anchor the discussion in Greek shame-culture, where the emphasis falls on the character of persons rather than the abstraction of rules. Across these positions, moral character emerges as irreducibly psychological: dispositional, narrative, partly unconscious, and never reducible to rule-compliance.