No, it wouldn't.

Here is a helpful thread for people that didn't understand LOTR.

The ring isn't just an Evil Macguffin. Its role in the story is as *the realization of the potential* of power. 1/ https://twitter.com/matthewwalther/status/1303859637033332742

Every smoothbrain take of 'oh Aragorn should have destroyed it' 'oh Manwe should have destroyed it' (or the even smoother 'Manwe should have *wielded it*') is just a big flashing sign that the point has been missed, and you couldn't be trusted with the ring either. 2/

Aragorn *could not* have destroyed the ring. *Even Frodo couldn't destroy it*. No one could have destroyed it, because the Ring isn't an object, it's an axiom. If you make it to the end of the story, you find out that Frodo actually does not toss the ring into Mount Doom. 3/

LOTR is about this: The ability to get your way without true voluntary participation is always evil, EVEN IF you are a good person and EVEN IF your way would be good if chosen voluntarily. Read this twice if you didn't get it the first time. 4/

The greater the power you already wield, the more dangerous the ring is in your hands. 5/

Indisputably moral Boromir - characterized by integrity (more so than Aragorn, frankly), fraternal love, responsibility, courage, and a profound desire to protect those who can't protect themselves - could not handle it. 6/

Aragorn fared better than Boromir for 1 reason: he was more power-averse. A trait that gave him less integrity and responsibility than Boromir, but also made him *more wary* (of what Boromir willingly shouldered at personal cost) - so counterintuitively, more fit to bear it. 7/

Aragorn ultimately knew much better than to try and bear the ring himself for the same reason he avoided claiming the throne of Gondor for the better part of a century: he knew better than to trust himself with it. 8/

He definitely knew better than to volunteer himself to be Siegfried, *because the fucking point of the Ring is that there are no heroes*. 9/

In the end Frodo doesn't destroy the Ring; the Ring destroys itself (through Gollum). The lesson is not that we picked the wrong hero, it's that power is the antithesis of peace. 10/

Middle-Earth wasn't saved through a noble hero using his power for good - it was saved because the good people (actually represented by Sam, btw, not Frodo) survived long enough to get to go home. 11/

Note that Aragorn did not assume the throne until *after* the destruction of the Ring. He didn't claim power until the possibility of wielding power through force had been *erased from the earth*. 12/

A lot of people draw a comparison between Gollum and Frodo - but focus for a moment on the comparison between Gollum and *Sauron*, the two parallel threats to Frodo from the start of his journey all the way into Mount Doom itself. 13/

For all his resources, Sauron himself is ultimately reduced to the same pitiful level as Gollum by the end, through his choice to relentlessly pursue power (symbolized by the Ring). He grows his power at the expense of diminishing himself. 14/

And the same would have been true of Aragorn, if he had taken possession of the Ring, or Boromir, or Gandalf - who was sufficiently clear on the danger of underestimating Sauron and the Ring that he himself wouldn't even *touch* it. 15/

There is a lot more to be said on why Gandalf - a Maia of Nienna, who turns grief into wisdom - understood the dangers so much better than Saruman - a Maia of Aule *just as Sauron had been*. 16/

But instead I will finish by pointing out that Sauron *never* perceived himself as evil - he perceived himself as *deserving*. 'Sauron' is just a rude elvish pun on his real name, Tar-Mairon, which means 'King Admirable'. 17/

The Ring made anyone who wielded it feel deserving in that way. If the power-averse Aragorn had borne the Ring, he would have been completely debased by it too, but he still would have perceived himself to the end as the admirable, deserving king of Gondor - the hero. 18/18