Paper evaluation question
Group 39: Aristotle on Improving One’s Character

The published paper entitled Aristotle on Improving One’s Character by Gianluca Di

Muzio, weaves a delicate tapestry of character, ethics, and general human behavior relating back

to the case notes and studies of one of the foremost philosophical thinkers of our kind. People

exercise a certain degree of voluntarism when it comes to formulating their own unique

personalities, principles, and values by which they live their lives. Essentially, one’s thoughts,

decisions, and even physical actions are not governed by innate instincts, values, or outside

stimulus. They are really determined by a series of conscious choices. One of the overarching

questions proposed and tackled within this essay is whether we do, in fact, have a choice to be

who we want to be – are we truly the captain of our ships? Throughout this essay we shall

examine how our character development is affected by both the voluntary actions and the

involuntary circumstances, considering that the way people choose to define and exercise “good”

is in-and-of-itself interdependent with factors beyond their control.

According to both Aristotle and Muzio, though difficult, we are certainly capable of

changing our persona and make constant decisions to behave in a more desirable manner. It is

argued that people who perform moral reform adjust their behavior through a series of internal

reflections. This idea can stretch across the entire board by a careful examination of ethics,

character and personal values. Muzio stipulates in the year 2000 that, “To say that character is

voluntary, and that we can control the character we acquire, is not to say that we can acquire a

character at will, just by wishing to do so. Put more formally, Aristotle is committed to the

conditional “If a person has an X-type character, that person wishes to be an X-type person”, but

he wants to make it clear that this conditional does not entail its converse” (p. 208). Perhaps the

subject matter is far more complex than what meets the eye; it could be a logical fallacy to

presume that this is a black-or-white issue. It is much more plausible that freewill and

predetermined conditions are not mutually exclusive.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that character is a result of engaging in

voluntary activities. Hence, an individual who frequently practices negative actions will be

labeled as a person with a negative character. Although people do not always make the right

judgement, they seldom make wrong decisions on purpose. Such discrepancy between the reality

and the ideal surfaces because everyone has different ideas as to what constitutes a “good”

decision is. For example, even an individual with consistently good behavior would pick up a

dollar bill on the floor and pocket it. It is possible that this hypothetical person does not view

such action as particularly immoral. We all have a set of values that we try to adhere to. Those

with strong discipline tend to make more frequent use of freewill, often contradicting internal

and or external impulses that tell them to do otherwise. The legal system was cultivated as a

social contract because not everyone does a good job sticking to their code of ethics. It is true

that even the most serious criminal has room to change for the better. This transformation of

character, however, can only be successful if it is done willingly and voluntarily. We must also

stress that having a strong will does not equate a good character – one could have “bad” code of

ethics and vigorously commit “bad” actions.

The question that must be answered at this point is how one differentiates good and evil.

Aristotle neglects certain natural factors that can shape and form a person’s character. Nature,

whether it be socioeconomic status, physical environment, or genetics, does play a huge role in

composing one’s character. If someone was brought up in a Christian family, it is highly likely

that the person will turn out to be Christian. Likewise, if someone was taught at school or social

circles that certain ethnic groups are inferior to others, the person becomes more susceptible to

racial prejudice. One could be born a genius with a good heart but limited by the fact that his

parents were slaves. The Greek philosopher stated that we are what we do frequently – in other

words, our character is shaped by our habits. Thoughts become actions, which develop into

habits, and consequently into character. Aristotle was also an advocate of the idea that our ability

to think is restricted by our linguistic ability. If one knows of only 5 words, there are only so

many thoughts that can be formulated. Hence, it is fair to argue that someone whose pool of

vocabulary constitutes of nothing but negative words will have a more difficult time formulating

a positive thought. If the person is full of negative thoughts, it is more likely to make negative

actions. Ultimately, an individual who frequently makes bad decisions will form a bad character.

This means that a lack of education and or an environment to fully develop and flourish as a

“good” human being could limit people.

Many of us are gifted with the intellectual complexity and strong discipline to willingly

develop our character. Unfortunately, there are far more people in the world who are challenged

by their environments. Everyone has the potential to be good or evil, but not everyone has the

same level of freewill or circumstances required to choose. Aristotle argues that character is

voluntary, and that it can be chosen at will if the individual truly desires. What he failed to

address is the fact that the measure of good or bad character heavily depends on the person’s

background and upbringing. Of course, it is possible for a serial killer to convert into a saint, but

this is very unlikely given that Aristotle is rather skeptical about conversion stemming from

persuasion. People become criminals either because they lack the willpower necessary to adhere

to their good code of ethics, or because they have strong willpower to support their misguided

code of ethics.

Shaping our character is a constant battle between our freewill and environmental factors

that are well beyond our control. Though we agree with Aristotle’s view that character is

voluntary, we would also add that not everyone enjoys the same degree of options. In other

words, some people have more favorable conditions, both innate and otherwise, that allow them

to practice freewill to a greater extent. On the opposite side of the coin, however, there are

people who still have the ability to change, but also happen to be playing against a stacked deck.

C’est la vie.

Reference

Muzio, G.D. (2000). Aristotle on Improving One’s Character. Phronesis, 45(3), 208.