In his book Nicomanchean Ethics Aristotle explains and differentiates voluntary and involuntary actions and expatiate on all the factor that contribute in deciding on the nature of our actions. The purpose of this differentiation is essential for the study of virtue ethics and more importantly for the study of jurisprudence “to the assigning of both of honors and of punishments” onto individuals. Aristotle firstly describes factors that causes actions to be involuntary or voluntary, such as ignorance, compulsion and choice. The understanding of such factors and their relation to our actions are also important to understand the principles explained by Aristotle.
Voluntary actions is defined by Aristotle as actions that have their principle
…show more content…
For ignorance, Aristotle divides acts that are done by “reason of ignorance and those which were acted in ignorance”. Compulsory acts would be involuntary because they are done essentially under the influence of external forces such as “the wind or by men who had him [the individual] in their power”, which the principle of the action is not “contributed to the person who is acting or is feeling the passion”. It is valuable to clarify, that compulsory actions are actions that individuals have no power upon. Actions such as the ones done by fear or by threats, explains Aristotle, have a different nature even though it seems to be in itself compulsory. An example of this is when someone threatens a relative of a certain individual to get him to do a specific action. In this case “it may be debated whether such actions are involuntary or voluntary” as it seems that the action itself was done voluntarily with the purpose, in this case, to save someone. Such actions, affirms Aristotle, “are mixed, but are more like voluntary actions” since at that specific time (when the action occurred) the individual has a …show more content…
It is important to notice that since virtue ethics, defended by Aristotle, is based on rationality (which he explains is the only factor that differentiates humans from animals), choice becomes a great deal when debating on human behavior. For Aristotle, everything chosen is voluntary, but not everything voluntary is chosen, and he explains this further with the children example. Children actions are voluntary but not particularly chosen due to their level of rationality. Further Aristotle explains how human choice is not responsible for its results, since choice can only relate to actions and feelings that is in our power. For example, one could not choose to win a competition or to be healthy as he explains but he could choose to do actions that are going to help the individual to achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, if one wishes to be healthy, he can choose to eat healthy and practice sports, but his choice of being healthy just by its own will not predict the outcome of actually being healthy. Conclusively, “choice relates to the means and wish relates rather to the end”. Additionally, Aristotle also expatiates on anger and appetite. These characteristics, for Aristotle are related to pleasure and feelings which are themselves relate to all animals. However, choice is not for that choice is only related to rational beings. Additionally, acts done in anger or in appetite does not
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the human good is the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. Aristotle concludes this from an invalid argument. On the one hand I do agree that the activity expressing virtue is a requirement for the human good. But on the other hand, I insist that the human good is a state and not an action. By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts.
Suppose a wealthy individual is of voting age and finds a law unjust and would like to leave Athens. In this scenario, he has the means to do so and a decision to stay would be Socrates, binding him to follow the laws obediently. However, imagine this individual is disabled, and physically cannot leave Athens. Assuming his efforts to persuade the government are futile, his decision to stay would not be made on his own accord, and it would not be unjust for him to break the laws he deems unjust. Furthermore, imagine a healthy individual with the financial means to leave Athens.
It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father; it is much more so to use it against your country.” What we say in reply, Crito, that the laws speak the truth, or not?” (TDS pg 51,52). By breaking the law, Socrates would be disobeying the laws as a citizen, like a child disobeying his parent. By escaping he would have been doing an impious act that would affect his standing with the gods.
This discussion on free will is important because it gives emphasis to the reality that man is not credited to his own instincts and that man’s action will always come from him because he is free to do so. Whereas Dante views free will as the freedom to make judgement that is supported by reason. (Purg. XVI). Furthermore, Virgil claims that love is the source of both good and evil deeds. (Purg XVII)
Nussbaum attempts to explain her understanding of Aristotle’s argument, “What he does, in each case, is to isolate a sphere of human experience that figures in more or less any human life, and in which more or less any human being will have to make some choices rather than others, and act in some way rather than another”. Instead of giving any concrete forms to living virtuously, Nussbaum explains there is a general way that Aristotle says that we should act. This is where Nussbaum’s and Aristotle’s argument connect in their generalities and therefore, things get messy. In saying that there is a general framework, this allows for variations in relating certain actions to certain virtues.
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
Lucy Bichakhchyan Introduction to Philosophy Second Short Written Assignment GALEN STRAWSON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Galen Strawson is a British philosopher, who is famous for his philosophical works on free will, panpsychism, causality, determinism etc. This paper is about his article “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility”. The title of the article already gives away the stand that Strawson has considering Moral Responsibility..
This principle lies at the heart of the great-souled man, the first of Aristotle’s peaks of humanly excellence. The great-souled man is chiefly concerned with—and strikes the mean with—external goods. The greatest of these goods is “the one that we assign to the gods, and at which people of high standing aim most of all, and which is the prize given for the most beautiful deeds; and of this kind is honor” (67:1123b19-21). A man who has achieved greatness of soul is deserving of great honors, but more importantly, he understands his own desert and acts appropriately.
Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused. In order to evaluate Aristotle’s ethical argument, it is first necessary to explain his definitions of character acquisition, volition, and responsibility. Aristotle defines character acquisition very succinctly:
Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people?
The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
To asses this situation as Aristotle would, we must look at his writings on voluntary and involuntary actions. In Aristotle’s writings he states that voluntary and involuntary action can be distinguished by several different factors. The first of these factors is the virtue of the agent, which is defined as the alignment of ones passions and their actions (pg. 307). Virtue is also concerned with praise and blame that is bestowed on the agent after the repercussions of their actions (pg. 307). Aristotle sates that virtue cannot be fundamentally decided.
Slavery had a great effect not only on Ancient Greece, some saying slaves were the necessity to build the civilization entirely, but also had an effect on other countries throughout history obtaining slavery. Greek slavery has contributed a variety of scholarly debate, precisely regarding Aristotle’s viewpoint on his theory of slavery being natural. The theory of natural slavery has produced questions of whether or not Aristotle has contradicted himself making his evidence uncertain. This essay will be examining and analysing the evidence that Aristotle provides in regards to his theory of natural slavery. It will be questioning if he produces a straightforward view regarding his beliefs of natural slaves and the abilities they possess.
Aristotle also observed that human beings are hedonist in that they pursue pleasure and seek to diminish pain. If human beings are to become moral, they must be willing to act against their nature and learn to be in control of their impulsiveness. This can be achieved by letting their rational judgment and reasoning is in control. In his translation of Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics, Joe Sachs explains that, “The function of man is activity of soul in accordance with reason or least without reason”. In simpler words, Aristotle claimed that individuals function maximally when they involve reasoning in their decision making process.
(Ethics 938). It is not enough to state that one is virtuous, nor is it enough for someone to be born virtuous and end there. Rather, it is the continuous pursuit, the juxtaposition of virtuous activity and of that which isn’t, that allows an individual to flourish in an Aristotelian society. We can deduce, then, that “…human