Aristotle proposes that virtue is a greater good than honor, because honor is granted by other people while virtue is intrinsic. Even though virtue is intrinsic, it is built upon voluntary actions. At the same time it seems like actions can not purposely create virtue. This makes me wonder if virtue can be earned at all, similar to the way that Aristotle says honor is earned. Perhaps virtue is merely a byproduct of voluntary acts and a person cannot conciously control how virtuous they are. That doesn't seem right though, because Aristotle goes on to say that a voluntary action is a choice. Perhaps it is that a person cannot choose to perform a virtuous action because there is a motive behind their choice, and if there is a motive then the action is no longer virtuous. The action may gain them honor, but it will not gain them virtue. If this is true, then virtue is an inherent good that cannot purposefully be changed.
This still raises the question of how virtue is determined. If virtue is a greater good than honor because it is intrinsic, then how can virtue be judged by anyone other than oneself? The reading makes it seem like judgement degrades the quality of virtue. If virtue can be judged, then it seems like virtue can hardly be seen as a greater good than honor. It is still motivated by external validation.