Final answer:
Aristotle did include actions or passions inherently deemed bad without the consideration of moderation, as some dispositions can be negative by nature due to factors like upbringing. While many dispositions and actions may be moderated for virtue, habits and repeated actions that are intrinsically vicious cannot be made virtuous simply through moderation.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Aristotle, there are indeed actions or passions that imply badness without the need for moderation to be considered as such. In the context of Aristotle's ethics, particularly in his work, Nicomachean Ethics, he distinguishes between actions that are intrinsically evil and those that are only evil when taken to excess or deficiency. For Aristotle, certain dispositions can inherently lean towards badness, rooted in what can be considered a bad upbringing or the formation of negative dispositions. This contrasts with his general principle that virtuous acts are mean states between excess and deficiency.
Habit and repetition are pivotal in shaping character, suggesting that virtues and vices are not inborn but cultivated through practice. That said, Aristotle acknowledges there are specific vices that imply badness on their own, irrespective of the level to which they are practiced. As he explores the concept of potentiality and actuality, it becomes clear that the pursuit of 'the good' is complex, and cannot be reduced to simple moderation alone.
In understanding the role of action and habit in the cultivation of virtue or vice, Aristotle notes that a good upbringing promotes the formation of positive dispositions, thereby increasing the likelihood of virtuous actions. Conversely, a bad upbringing tends to cultivate negative dispositions, leading to a greater propensity for actions that are inherently bad. Thus, for Aristotle, while moderating actions can certainly lead to virtue, there are indeed dispositions and actions that are bad in themselves, without considering any balance or moderation.