Aristotle’s
theory of character acquisition is similar to the traditional nature versus
nurture argument. Some
people believe that we became the sort of people that we
are now through our experiences. Others believe that we are born as a specific
type of person and there is nothing we can do about it. Aristotle believes that
everyone is born with certain capacities but it is our choice to become who we
are. For example, if alcoholism runs in your family then you have the capacity
to become an
alcoholic. However, if you choose never to take a drink, due to
fear of alcoholism or other reasons, then you cannot possibly become an
alcoholic. This example fits with the drunk driver from the vignette. This
woman obviously had the capacity to become a party animal and realized it in
some way. “In the end, I’m no more
responsible for my personality than you are
for your height.” She does not believe that her personality is a result of
habituation. She expresses that she believes she was born as a person who
enjoys parties and getting drunk and thus cannot change it. Therefore, she does
not agree with Aristotle.
4. The friend claims that she had no
control over her formation as a person and thus she is not responsible for who
she is. Essentially the argument she is giving would lead one to conclude that
we are not at all responsible for our actions because we are who we are and we
are not responsible for who we are because our personalities are a result of
nature, society, and culture. Thus her argument states that there is no
responsibility of action and that our actions and choices are the results of an
uncontrollable force. This logic hints that perhaps the choices we make are not
really our own and that humans are ruled by an outside force that is not
reason. I disagree – humans have reason, thus we can deliberate and decide,
followed ultimately by action. Our choices are our own if we follow reason.
Thinking again of the alcoholism scenario, if someone is born with the disposition
to be an alcoholic, in a society that tells him or her that drinking alcohol is
acceptable and chic, and everyone around him or her drinks heavily, that person
may decide otherwise. I would tell her of my father who was born to a family
plagued with alcoholism, raised in a small town with a bar on every corner, and
not discouraged from drinking. However, he limits himself to a glass of wine on
Thanksgiving and a beer or two at Christmas. Individuals can make decisions.
Her decision was to drink heavily without securing a sober ride home in advance
or at the party. She alludes to a past history of partying, which means that
she is aware of the effects of alcohol, aware that she was going to be
intoxicated, and aware that it would impair her ability to operate heavy
machinery. “A drunk, for instance, pays a double penalty; for the principle is
in him, since he controls whether he gets drunk, and his getting drunk causes
his ignorance” (1113b, 31-34). Aristotle believes that a person who causes
their own ignorance and acts under it is acting voluntarily and is responsible
for those actions; I agree.