Character In Ethics

12/12/21

Help Received: Course Materials, Bibliography; Ryan Hayes O’Connor 12/12/21

WC: 1209

Ethical decision-making tends to rely on the content of one’s character and the calling of past experiences to be sure of oneself. Aristotle believes that this is especially true when talking about ethics and makes several references to character and virtue throughout his writings. However, is Aristotle truly correct, or can ethics be discussed without the cumbersome and widely misunderstood theory that Aristotle proposes? There is irrefutable evidence that makes me believe that the theory that character is inseparable from ethics and that living a virtuous life is dependent on previous exposure to good virtue. A person can develop their character to a certain extent throughout their lifetime but not so much that they can become completely virtuous. Throughout this essay, this concept of virtue will be discussed in terms of how it relates to character and then how character can be developed or not as humans age or experience new things.

According to Aristotle, character is the balancing of emotional and appetitive faculties to form a virtuous person: someone who fulfills most, or all the sought-after traits of man deemed to be good.  Such traits are meant to benefit the individual, their community, and society when they are acted upon. Aristotle defines four main types of character a person can fall under after childhood and naturally conform to: virtuous, continent, incontinent, and vicious. Vicious and virtuous are extreme forms of character. A vicious person is naturally bad in character and possesses traits that are deemed malicious or deceitful in society or nature. Examples of such traits include stealing or lying. On the other hand, a Virtuous character will always act on the right thing, with naturally good instincts and traits as their guide. Being continent or incontinent signifies a person who is in between the two, with continent meaning the person mostly does good things but has the temptation to do bad, and incontinence meaning the person usually will act on bad tendencies but have some good sprinkled amongst those acts. Aristotle is adamant that the goal is to be raised to be a virtuous person, however, he understands society and parents might have different plans for their children. The issue with this is that choices and character become circumstantial depending on the situation, and therefore mean that a truly virtuous action cannot always be achieved. “Virtue lies in our power, and similarly so does vice; because where it is in our power to act, it is also in our power not to act…”[1]

Character is something that inherently cannot be changed in a person’s lifetime after childhood. Once an adult, the person has formed their own stigmas and opinions on the world and their character will ultimately reflect those premonitions. The same can be said for their internal virtue. Virtue is, in fact, a character trait, but is not Virtue is much more difficult to sway than character, which can be acted upon or not depending on the will of the individual, but it will never be fully natural if the person in incontinent or vicious in virtue.  Virtue being the source of a person’s character, it is impossible to perform a complete one-eighty once the baseline has been reached. It would be ridiculous to believe that someone who was brought up in a vicious household and never experienced good could eventually naturally be a virtuous person because they do not truly know what being virtuous is. The best a person like this could be is incontinent. There is little room to sway, but the virtuous things they may do would be only done to benefit themselves, and not because they genuinely believe in the good of it; mostly due to the fact they do not understand what it means to be virtuous. Virtue can be taught and learned, but the root will never be changed.

The idea of virtue, and where the four character types come from, arise from two distinctions of virtue, being intellectual and moral.  Intellectual virtue is learned and requires rationality, whereas moral virtue is formed through repetition and good habit. This being the case, Aristotle’s perfect virtuous person cannot be possible until they are a full adult. Aristotle says, “Moral experience—the actual possession and exercise of good character—is necessary truly to understand moral principles and profitably to apply them.”[2] All the seemingly right things you might have done as a teenager simply do not count towards a virtuous life but fit only into the realm of practice and habituation. Moreover, this kind of thinking shuts down the theory of natural goodness which discounts Aristotle’s belief in virtuous people being completely natural in their virtuous acts. This flawed theory on Aristotle’s behalf causes the human ideology that humans are inherently evil and do virtuous things out of the hope to create beneficial avenues for their own success, a common theme in politics and other livelihoods such as this that require incontinence to be successful.

Politicians as a group tend to sway towards incontinence or continence depending on how they sway on their individual political and personal agendas.  It is not uncommon or out of the question for politicians to act on their own systems of abuse and manipulation on a daily basis in order to advance that agenda.  It has been seen since the dawn of the human age, where those in power will exhaust their resources for their own betterment. No leader in history has ever been a virtuous person, nor practiced their occupation in a completely ethical manner. Just like all other incontinent peoples, they mimic those who are virtuous to gain the trust and respect of their subordinates, who wherein might actually be virtuous but choose to follow them because they have the character traits like trust and respect alongside them. 

A truly virtuous person is difficult to find in society. Someone who is truly virtuous and holds an undefining character will not likely flaunt themselves to the world, as they are also inherently humble. According to the beliefs of Aristotle, they will have been brought up in an environment that enriches their character and shows them the true meaning of acting and living a virtuous life for those around them, even when they are not rewarded for their efforts. After childhood, they find the good decisions they make come naturally and they no longer need to think about how they were taught to virtuously react to situations.

In conclusion, the ideology that character and virtue being intertwined is not inherently wrong, however the details within Aristotle’s perception are flawed in ways that discredit the thought pattern as a whole. For instance, a virtuous act relies upon drawing from two extreme reactions to a particular circumstance, which means that the truly virtuous action would be subjective from person to person. What results is a system of acts that are making a person’s character “virtuous” but also could be interpreted as continent or incontinent to another’s perception of the circumstances.

Bibliography

Aristotle. “The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.” Translated by D. P. Chase. The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, by Aristotle, July 10, 2003. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8438/8438-h/8438-h.htm.

Aristotle, W. D Ross, J. L Ackrill, and J. O Urmson. The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford (Oxfordshire): Oxford University Press, 1998.

[1] Aristotle, W. D Ross, J. L Ackrill, and J. O Urmson, 1998, The Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford (Oxfordshire): Oxford University Press.

[2]  Aristotle, “The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle,” trans. D. P. Chase, The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, by Aristotle, July 10, 2003, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8438/8438-h/8438-h.htm.