I don't find that to be true at all.

1) Could you please give some support to the statement: "today educated people are characterless in compared to uneducated people."? 2) "Characterless" could just be used here as a description for persons questioning or rejecting some traditional values. Of course educated people are often questioning a lot of things; this does not mean that they are immoral and don't have values of their own. Here an example of this rhetoric: "To understand this issue you should first look at the name of the blog in question and its meaning. They are saying themselves that the blog is for women who frequent pubs and have let go of their characters. And, yet, they consider their lifestyle a progressive step. Those women who are calling themselves loose and characterless on their blog and asking women to send their panties to unknown men will consider themselves successful only when every woman in India becomes “progressive” and characterless like them. We can’t leave our culture in their hands. Our mothers, daughters and daughters-in-law don’t need this “progressiveness”! Their undergarments will stay where they ought to stay. They will neither be displayed nor sent to unknown men." Source and further information: http://www.gauravonomics.com/blog/hindi-blogospheres-reactions-to-the-pink-chaddi-campaign-show-the-divide-between-bharat-and-india/ In this quote, the rejection of traditional values is considered a moral decadency by the defenders of tradition. They are not able to see all the wrong that some of those traditions have brought to the people (such as forcefully burning widows etc). 3) "Moral character or character is an evaluation of a particular individual's moral qualities. The concept of character can imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Moral character primarily refers to the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another - although on a cultural level, the set of moral behaviors to which a social group adheres can be said to unite and define it culturally as distinct from others. Psychologist Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as "a disposition to behave expressing itself in consistent patterns of functioning across a range of situations" (Pervin 1994, p. 108)." "Recently, a number of philosophers and social scientists have begun to question the very presuppositions that theories of moral character and moral character traits are based on. Due to the importance of moral character to issues in philosophy, it is unlikely that the debates over the nature of moral character will disappear anytime soon. Situationism can be understood as composed of three central claims: - Non-robustness Claim: moral character traits are not consistent across a wide spectrum of trait-relevant situations. Whatever moral character traits an individual has are situation specific. - Consistency Claim: while a person’s moral character traits are relatively stable over time, this should be understood as consistency of situation specific traits, rather than robust traits. - Fragmentation Claim: a person’s moral character traits do not have the evaluative integrity suggested by the Integrity Claim. There may be considerable disunity in a person’s moral character among her situation-specific character traits." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_character

Your statement is flawed. If you would like to give examples I'm listening.

If that was meant to be ironic, then bravo. If that was an honest question, then you're "characterless." Sorry.

I wouldn't know - I'm too well educated to understand the question.

you saying I ain't got no character?