For Aristotle, the vile is the mirror opposite of the virtuous, that is, a character that has been trained to obtain great power through doing all the wrong things instead of all the right things (think of the Jules hit-man character in Pulp Fiction who later tries to turn over a new leaf). For Aristotle, once you have become a vile or vicious adult, you can never really become good again (and vice versa a truly good person can never become truly bad). Kind of like being an alcoholic, who may have stopped drinking for years but is always in danger of falling back off the wagon. Such a person can never be completely redeemed since they will never be entirely free of temptation. Conversely, a virtuous person has done the work necessary to become free of temptation altogether. Do you agree with Aristotle here or do you think it is actually possible to change after adulthood? This is also why the colleges in the Hacking Into Harvard case decided not to admit anyone who had “hacked” into their databases. These were MBA applicants and as adults, they reasoned, their characters are basically already set. Justify your answer.