That is, morality is founded entirely on virtuous character traits such as courage, and these virtues are independent of ideal principles. The eliminatist will argue that courage is simply the character trait of facing fear, even if we are thieves who are facing the fear of a confrontation with the police. Thus, particular actions are understood as mere expressions of character traits. This stands in sharp contrast to both consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories which judge morality solely on the agent's intended action, with no regard for the agent's good or bad character traits. There are, however, problems with this view.
Critics argue that people are condemned for their bad actions.
For, character traits only inform us about the types of actions an agent is likely to perform, but this does not mean that the agent will in fact perform that action. It is, then, wrong to pass moral judgment on an agent simply on the basis of her character traits. Therefore, the agent's action is the object of our judgment. In contrast to eliminatism, the essentialist will argue that there is either a single rule or a core set of rules, which universally establish when a character trait is good or bad. However, this concession to rules may be to much of a compromise, and may not constitute a genuine alternative to rule-based approach normative ethics.