by Matilda Atkins
People talk a lot about what other people are like as if their character is fixed and something they cannot change. We describe other people and ourselves as introverted or extroverted, mean or nice, funny or boring. It’s true that in life we find that people act the same way most of the time and we can predict how they are going to act. There is no other way that can only know the character of others than through their actions. Character and personality can often get confused, yet there is an important difference between them; character is moral attributes and qualities, and personality is made up of factors like cognitive abilities, behaviours, beliefs and ideologies. Character is deeper than personality and takes more observation to discover, and personality can be an expression of character. I am reluctant to think that I have no unchanging character, because it brings into question the reality of my existence.
Aristotle claims that people can voluntarily form their character and explains this through virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is the theory that we can shape our character by choosing to act in certain ways; character is developed by emulation, education, and experience. You can’t change just by wanting to though, you have to practice by copying role models and learning from mistakes. It seems like common sense that we can change how we act by getting into better habits. We have a nature, which Aristotle defines as a disposition to act in a certain way, yet we also have the freedom to choose to act in more virtuous ways instead. He says that the reasons behind a person becoming unjust are often their fault and or brought around voluntarily, but it is difficult to get rid of and they can’t help being in the situation later. You can cure character as you cure illness; evil people can be cured and reformed. However, he also says that some of those who become bad go past a certain point and are incurable.
Most people would agree with Aristotle that we have free will, however this is a very complicated debate which has no clear answer. To sum it up quickly, I think that we can only do what we think of and have the power to realise, but we still have a choice between the options which are available to us. Therefore, we have free will in a deterministic universe. If we have free will, it should follow that Aristotle is right and we can change our character through our actions. Aristotle’s point that you can cure character as you can cure illness would mean that our whole culture of justice and punishment for criminals is unfounded. Instead we would seek to cure them just as we would seek to cure an illness. Keeping them locked up for the safety of the public would still be reasonable; this is the same with people who are ill as they remain in hospital until they are better. If we don’t have free will Aristotle must be wrong as we would have no power to choose to act in a way different to the path we are determined to follow.
The nature or nurture debate seeks to find out if our behaviour and therefore our character is determined by our genetics which are pre-wired before we are born, or if it is determined by external factors such as environment and experiences. Most people would argue that it is a mixture of both. What is so interesting about this debate is that it questions whether your character is fixed or changeable. If your character was created or at least greatly impacted by how your parents raised you and where you grew up, it starts to seem arbitrary. There becomes nothing real which separates you from other people. For example, people are friends with certain people because of their character (hopefully), but why should they be friends with one person rather than any other if their character could change at any time. If your character can be completely changed from what it was when you were younger, how can you say that you are the same person as when you were younger?
Overall, I think that people may not have an unchanging character over time, but they still have a nature, as Aristotle says, a disposition to act a certain way. This is because we are psychologically connected to our past selves. Hume’s analogy of the Commonwealth helps to explain my argument. A commonwealth has several core members which don’t change often and a set of values that keep all its members together, but still its members and rules are constantly changing. This is a strong metaphor for the self because we have characteristics which stay with us for a long time and we have values that will also, but nothing is completely fixed and unchanging. We can surpass our dispositions and choose to change our characters using Aristotle’s methods. People who have done bad things in the past can change their characters and choose to be better.
 |
| Aristotle |
Aristotle claims that people can voluntarily form their character and explains this through virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is the theory that we can shape our character by choosing to act in certain ways; character is developed by emulation, education, and experience. You can’t change just by wanting to though, you have to practice by copying role models and learning from mistakes. It seems like common sense that we can change how we act by getting into better habits. We have a nature, which Aristotle defines as a disposition to act in a certain way, yet we also have the freedom to choose to act in more virtuous ways instead. He says that the reasons behind a person becoming unjust are often their fault and or brought around voluntarily, but it is difficult to get rid of and they can’t help being in the situation later. You can cure character as you cure illness; evil people can be cured and reformed. However, he also says that some of those who become bad go past a certain point and are incurable.
Most people would agree with Aristotle that we have free will, however this is a very complicated debate which has no clear answer. To sum it up quickly, I think that we can only do what we think of and have the power to realise, but we still have a choice between the options which are available to us. Therefore, we have free will in a deterministic universe. If we have free will, it should follow that Aristotle is right and we can change our character through our actions. Aristotle’s point that you can cure character as you can cure illness would mean that our whole culture of justice and punishment for criminals is unfounded. Instead we would seek to cure them just as we would seek to cure an illness. Keeping them locked up for the safety of the public would still be reasonable; this is the same with people who are ill as they remain in hospital until they are better. If we don’t have free will Aristotle must be wrong as we would have no power to choose to act in a way different to the path we are determined to follow.
The nature or nurture debate seeks to find out if our behaviour and therefore our character is determined by our genetics which are pre-wired before we are born, or if it is determined by external factors such as environment and experiences. Most people would argue that it is a mixture of both. What is so interesting about this debate is that it questions whether your character is fixed or changeable. If your character was created or at least greatly impacted by how your parents raised you and where you grew up, it starts to seem arbitrary. There becomes nothing real which separates you from other people. For example, people are friends with certain people because of their character (hopefully), but why should they be friends with one person rather than any other if their character could change at any time. If your character can be completely changed from what it was when you were younger, how can you say that you are the same person as when you were younger?
Overall, I think that people may not have an unchanging character over time, but they still have a nature, as Aristotle says, a disposition to act a certain way. This is because we are psychologically connected to our past selves. Hume’s analogy of the Commonwealth helps to explain my argument. A commonwealth has several core members which don’t change often and a set of values that keep all its members together, but still its members and rules are constantly changing. This is a strong metaphor for the self because we have characteristics which stay with us for a long time and we have values that will also, but nothing is completely fixed and unchanging. We can surpass our dispositions and choose to change our characters using Aristotle’s methods. People who have done bad things in the past can change their characters and choose to be better.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.