Somewhere in the 1960s when social revolution struck the cultural landscape with hurricane-like intensity a new definition of the word "character" began to emerge.

Before that turbulent decade, it was generally understood that a person's character was inseparable from his or her actions. If someone's life was characterized by noble deeds, he was considered "good." If his behavior was soiled by a pattern of illicit actions, he was viewed as "bad."

Americans were trained to think this way from childhood. The most popular English textbooks of the 19th Century, a series of eclectic readers by William McGuffey, contained lessons such as: "Good boys do not play in a rude way, but they take care not to hurt anyone. You must not lie. Bad boys lie, and swear, and steal."

This dichotomy was helpful, even beautiful, because it gave depth and perspective to the all-important subject of morality. Like the musical score in a film, like shadows on an oil painting, the ability to appreciate good people and disdain bad people became one of those necessary touches that made daily existence a little more comprehensible. It certainly made life more manageable.

But the push for personal freedom freedom from traditional moral values changed all of that. In the '60s revolution, new products took the marketplace of ideas by storm: products such as sex without marriage, pleasure without responsibility and education without ethics all of which won big. As a result, our nation took a quantum step backward.

This gigantic shift was unprecedented. In the 1950s, American values had not been too different from those of the 1920s. In both of those decades, people who were honest and kept their marriage vows were good. Those who were dishonest and cheated on their spouses were bad. And bad people were not to be trusted.

The genius of that model was that it offered symmetry to life: lines to observe, order to respect, harmony to enjoy. It also provided safety: safety from bad men, in that they were identified; safety for children and teens, who learned that in a morally sane society bad people lost and good people won.

Of course, the current wisdom on "character" has virtually nothing in common with the cleaner definitions that prevailed a scant generation ago. Today, character is not longer defined by what a person does. Instead, it is based on his apparent "intentions." If his words, attitudes, facial gestures and body language generate the impression that he is sincere, compassionate, and means well, he is considered to be a good person regardless of his actions.

In this kind of world, the question about character is not, Does the fabric of your life demonstrate an ongoing pattern of dishonesty and decency? Rather, the question becomes, Can you evoke in people the feeling that you really "care" about them apart from the catalog of your deeds?

To Americans of an earlier time, roguish men and women who tried to sell themselves to others were viewed as charlatans unworthy of trust.

"Do not be deceived, bad company corrupts good morals." Those are the words of St. Paul, from his first Corinthian letter. Without this wisdom, we are easy prey for those who are skilled at masking their selfishness with charm and persuasive emotion.