Are We Rightly Held Responsible For Our Own Moral Character, Essay Example

Aristotle believed that each human being was destined to pursue a life of happiness through various means: specifically, be grouped people into three life types: enjoyment, political, and contemplative.  This theoretical base assumes that an individual finds solace and happiness through his own experiences, and yet also assumes that these experiences will have different effects on an individual according to the methods in which they are carried out.

This theory has a great deal to do with the traditional sense of teaching.  Teachers are not only employed to serve young students and instill them with a mandated education, but they are also parents, siblings, and any other people who come into contact with a person not familiar with his or her life occupations.  Aristotle said “each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general” (Nicomachean Ethics).

It is certainly true that one person can only profess to properly understand those elements of life that have been present in it; ignorance of other methods of living, other employments, cultures, societal systems and even the arts can dramatically change the thoughts and actions of a person.  If we are to continue to assume that people will succumb to a life of enjoyment, politics or contemplation, it must also be assumed that whichever of these is chosen was at some point made familiar to the individual whereas the other two were not a constant or forceful presence.

To subscribe to one life path over another is probably not so much of a choice as it is a necessity.  A person can only use what knowledge he or she has of the existing world to make decisions about life, and unfortunately does not have access to the overall human store of knowledge that might otherwise affect daily decisions.  For an individual to be held responsible for his or her moral character, in this sense, is seemingly cruel and not constructive.  Would a child be held responsible for poor morality? Certainly not; it is universally understood that a child lacks education, the antidote to ignorance and, in a sense, non-conformity in terms of ethics.  If an uneducated child cannot be blamed for poor reasoning, how then can an ignorant adult be blamed for the same thing?

It is common practice for people to take pride in their accomplishments and in their moral platform, however it seems somewhat inappropriate to do so if one considers the life path that produced that specific moral base.  From childhood, education begins as mere socialization and the child cannot help but to learn from example and mimic what he or she interprets as the stronger character.  This simple pattern of social education continues throughout adolescence and adulthood, and determines what aspects of life the individual will subject himself to.  Moral character is not a human characteristic that reflects individual sanity or intelligence, but instead is reflective of upbringing and socialization.  Ethical frameworks are not born but molded by external factors.