LNAt sec b

hello, I have my LNAT in a few weeks and wanted some feedback on this argument:

‘Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.’ Aristotle

Explain what you think is meant by this statement. Argue on the contrary. To what extent do you agree this is true?

Aristotle's statement is simply about practice makes perfect, which is true. People are creatures of habit, the more we repeatedly do something the easier and more instinctual it becomes to commit the act. However, this essay will argue how 'moral excellence' is a very subjective word, as one person's idea of admirable behaviour is not another's. Therefore, if there were to be a united understanding of what 'moral excellence' is, how would it be implemented, would it become a government policy? Which in itself is morally dubious as to what entitles the government to inherently change people.

To ensure that moral excellence brings benefits to society (e.g more individuals committing helpful acts or less violence in society as people become more temperate), society would have to implement an outline as to what is considered moral excellency since each individual would have a different as view to what this is. For example, murderous psychopaths could see moral excellence as committing the most harm to individuals as they could. This demonstrates the harm that undefined moral excellence can bring to society.

Yet, how would this excellence be ensured, in most scenarios, society relies on its government to implement policies which incentivise its citizens to make morally beneficial acts. This incentivisation works, as seen in countries where recycling is incentivised through money: people get money from recycling bottle caps properly. However, this raises questions of ethics as it would not be ethically right for a government to incentivise its citizens to be 'good', through money. This perpetuates unhealthy emotional habits as people are only willing to be good if there is a financial benefit. Ultimately, creating a society in which money is the sole gain of being morally excellent, not being a decent member of society.

Additionally, what would give the government, schools or any legal system the right to enforce moral correctness onto its citizens? By imposing moral excellence onto citizens you are removing any natural personality traits they hold and assuming that they cannot dictate right from wrong. Nonetheless, through a common understanding of moral excellence, you impose a common mindset in every citizen, removing them of their inherent traits as not everyone aspires to be 'brave', or 'temperate'. Moreover, this would reduce diversity within society as everyone holds the same idea of right and wrong, and without diversity of opinion, there would be no innovation as there are no contrasting ideologies to discuss and challenge.

To conclude as an idea moral excellence is perfect, but ironically the implementation of it would be immoral, and make humanity one dimensional as everybody must hold the same ideas of right and wrong.