Aristoteles Y El Derecho

March 29, 2010


Short Paper Assignment on Aristotle

The evidenced introduced about John Smith’s poverty- stricken background and his drug addiction doesn’t prove that he was ‘born bad’, that he was forced to live the life he is living, his actions were done involuntary, that society has taught him to be bad and not to be good. This evidence doesn’t prove that he wants to become aproductive member of society. His continuous criminal actions led to his present mentality. Therefore by changing his sentence to a drug rehabilitation center won’t guarantee that he will change. He has chosen to continue to be the same person therefore needs to be punished with a strong sentence in order to maintain justice and protect the people.
You say that we are all naturally good, because we areborn that way but I think that we are not; we are not born morally good. You say that children don’t have to practice being good because they are good, but I think that in order for children aren’t necessarily good. We all learn moral virtue by practice, and developing the right habits since we are children, leading the children to be good and continue to be good in the future. Therefore childrendo practice to be good and get good habits, enlightened by good laws and good authority. In this case with children the authority and laws that enlighten them may be through parents and teachers who enforce rules.
You then ask how can someone end in the tragically helpless situation in which your client finds himself and the answer is quite simple if one repeats morally vicious acts then thatmakes us more morally vicious, which goes along with my notion that we are not born morally virtuous.
You may be right that John Smith’s lifestyle was forced upon him, but that still isn’t a valid excuse to why he committed the crimes and why he shouldn’t be punished for them. It is important to be clear that by force means the agent contributes to nothing at all; someone carries it, the actionis done for him. Therefore, John Smith committed those crimes voluntary; he wasn’t forced to commit the crimes even though he was forced to the lifestyle in which he grew up. He had a choice whether or not to commit the crimes, he chose to continue to choose the same action that got him into trouble the first time, therefore his actions became habits and those habits produced in him a certaincharacter.
I disagree with what you say that John Smith has not been taught to be good, and that he does not know how wrong it is to do what he has done. John Smith has been taught that his actions are wrong and against the law. The fact that spending the better part of his life behind bars points out that he has been taught that what he has done is wrong, therefore he does know the difference ofwhat is right and wrong. The reason for punishing those who commit voluntary acts is to “correct” their wrongdoing. Hence, society has taught him to be good, they have showed him time and time again that what he has done is wrong but he chose to continue to be bad and commit the crimes after being punished.
He is aware that what he does is wrong and that he should not do it, therefore he isimmoral and ignorant. It is important that you understand that ignorance in moral choice, does not excuse his actions; alternately it is the precise meaning of vice, and vice is voluntary.
Natural doesn’t mean its origin it means more its end or purpose. Therefore when you say that social institutions are said to be natural doesn’t mean only because they are old, it doesn’t mean its origin. Naturalis an end or its purpose. The important thing is that if society were to be restructured it cannot occur by eliminating what is natural. The purpose of human beings is fulfilled in a political atmosphere because it allows us to achieve the virtues and allows us to interact socially; therefore the state is natural. This also applies to the family where the relationship between two people such as...