"The acts of a morally weak person are accompanied by appetite, but not by choice, while a morally strong person acts from choice, but not from appetite." (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1111b12)I think the guy has a point, and I'm inclined to believe him. After all, appeasing my appetite for pizza would lead to health problems, and that would be bad if not immoral. But choosing to eat vegetables would be good for me. I got an appetite for mega mammon, but rather than just grab it from the nearest cash drawer, I must choose to show up to and work a job that's less than satisfying.
Aristotle would say that appetitive acts are voluntary, i.e. morally accountable. What do you think? Does it matter whether one acts from appetite or choice? Is one really better than the other? Does the Christian always act by choice rather than appetite? Can a person have an appetite for something morally virtuous or excellent?
1 comment:
Assuming that a "Christian" is a truly dedicated follower and imitator of Jesus Christ...
Still, no. Christians do not always act by choice rather than appetite because we are human (thus we bother to wrestle with morals). However, a true Christian would have a characteristic bent toward an appetite for "morally virtuous or excellent" things. At the very least, they are encouraged to foster this.
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Phil 4:8
Post a Comment