What Is Aristotle's Response To 1114b

In the third book of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle introduces his theory regarding moral responsibility and responds to multiple arguments in an attempt to justify his ideas. In 1114b, Aristotle attempts to address an argument against one of his opinions, and subsequently suggests the idea that people are never responsible for their actions. I would disagree with this, as I believe that although people cannot be held responsible for every one of their actions, they must be responsible for some of them. This can be challenged by explaining Aristotle’s other beliefs regarding what people can be held responsible for, and what makes these specific actions different from others.

Aristotle clearly states that things that occur by force or due to

Aristotle replies by saying that if people are responsible for their character, they are also responsible for the way that their character causes them to view an end. The objection to this statement introduces the argument that if everyone is ignorant of the end, and is attempting to do what is best for themselves, they would need to be born with a natural sense of what is truly good in order to have the proper judgement to choose. This would mean that no one could be responsible for their actions without having been born with this inherent sense of what is good, and people are not born with this sense. Therefore, people clearly cannot be held responsible for their actions as a result of their ignorance. This goes against Aristotle’s earlier points, as he is implying that nothing can truly be our responsibility if our ignorance prevents us from being able to tell what is good and what is not. In this sense, Aristotle’s response to this objection should be changed, in order for his other arguments to be

This could be achieved by addressing some of his previous points and making them more clear, as some of his earlier ideas had some confusing aspects to them. Aristotle provides examples regarding what exactly he thinks people should be held accountable for, but is not specific enough on his exact defining factors of what should be considered voluntary. In order to progress his argument far enough to make it effective, he should edit some of his previous work and add specificity so that he can provide adequate reasoning later on. He also needs to readdress the objection at 1114b with and adequate explanation of what exactly justifies ignorance, and which actions can be considered ‘ignorant’ in order to prove that not every action can be done in ignorance. For example, if given particular scenarios that could clearly be considered morally right or wrong, most people would be able to correctly determine which situations were good and which were bad. Therefore, there cannot be complete ignorance, as almost any person would be able to determine that an action such as murder would be morally wrong. Because people are able to determine that some of these actions would be considered morally wrong, they cannot claim that they had to be born with an inherent sense of what is morally