Abstract
Suppose that someone (S) is worthy of blame for something they have done (α). What makes that so? What makes S worthy of blame for α? Here is one popular answer: what S did 'manifested' a defect in their character. Call theories of blameworthiness which say this Manifested Character Theories. Herein, I argue against such theories. They require a coherent notion of what it is for character traits to be 'manifested' in our doings. Unfortunately, the available notions of 'manifestation' are either: (i) extensionally inadequate, (ii) normatively unmotivated, (iii) incoherent or (iv) provide us with the tools needed to explain our blameworthiness absent appeal to our character traits.