Moral Responsibility In Book III Of Nicomachean Ethics
The concept of moral responsibility is critical in any functional society. Each person’s goal is to eventually reach a healthy and fulfilled life. Aristotle argues that we are responsible for our choices, therefore we are responsible for the character that is built from those choices. Aristotle states that we are responsible for the person that we are and eventually become. He also begins going into a portion of his argument where he states that children and animals make voluntary decisions, but are they responsible in the same way that mature adults are? Aristotle’s argument seems to be very circumstantial. There are many loopholes in the statements he makes throughout Book III of Nicomachean Ethics. Under what conditions is it acceptable
…show more content…
to hold a person responsible for their actions, and under what conditions is it not acceptable? Aristotle claims in Book III that responsibility is placed on a person when their action is voluntary. But it is slightly unclear as to what makes an action voluntary or not. Actions can be divided into two categories, ones that are voluntary and ones that are not voluntary. After that, those things that “are not voluntary” can be divided into non-voluntary and involuntary actions. For an action to be considered voluntary the cause must be within the proxy (since it could be either a person or an animal) and the action must not be taken out of ignorance. And if an action is consider non-voluntary the cause must be outside the proxy or caused by ignorance, the opposite of an action that is voluntary. Aristotle talks about how force comes into play in this entire situation, and an action becomes not voluntary if the force is external to the proxy. He uses the example of a person getting picked up by a strong wind, it would be clear that that happened by force, and was not voluntary. Even if the cause is internal, rather than external, there are some cases that Aristotle still believes are non-voluntary. This is when the action comes about by ignorance. Yet, there is a distinction between ignorant actions. The main difference is between actions caused by ignorance and an action done in ignorance. An action is caused by ignorance if it is done because the proxy ignores the details of the action. In these cases, the proxy truly doesn't know who is feeling the affects of the action and what the eventual consequences may be. An example of this type of situation would be a child taking a sip of grape juice, not knowing that it is wine. Oppositely, an action done in ignorance is when the proxy is perfectly knowledgeable of all the different aspects their action could have an affect on. In the context of Nicomachean Ethics, the ignorance is referring to what kind of actions we should do or not. And Aristotle says this ignorance is the cause of a vice. Aristotle uses the example of a thief robbing a bank. The thief knows exactly what he's doing when taking the action of robbing that bank, and he goes ahead and does it anyways. (1110b25-1111a7) These two different forms of ignorance relate to two separate stages of “practical syllogism.” A proxy could know what kind of action must be taken in a certain situation, but still does the wrong thing due to ignorance. A proxy in this situation, would not be held accountable because they would not be considered vicious, rather that the proxy was placed in unfavorable circumstances. These circumstances didn't allow the proxy too understand all of the variables that surrounded his action choice. In contrast, a proxy who does know the details of an action is blamed because his action is an indicator of a vice. So when an action is done in ignorance it is voluntary, but when it is done by ignorance it is considered non-voluntary. Now there is a distinction between the actions that Aristotle considers voluntary and the actions he does not consider voluntary. Aristotle then begins to show the differences between the non-voluntary and the involuntary actions. Both categories are done by ignorance, but there is a difference that distinguishes between these two types of actions. It has to do with the proxy becoming aware of details that were ignored earlier. The proxies that look back on their passed actions and regret them are said to have performed them involuntarily. He realizes that his actions were not a valid representation of his character, and if he had known the particulars of his action at that time then he wouldn't have done it. Oppositely, those who look back on their passed poor actions and see nothing wrong with them, even after realizing the circumstances of their action, are said to have taken that action non voluntary. This is because the action is not contrary to the proxy’s character. To say in conclusion that an action is voluntary does not necessarily mean that the action was taken rationally by the proxy. Sometimes actions that are caused by impulse or appetite can also be voluntary. Oppositely, Aristotle states that we should not say animals or children do voluntary actions. This is because the actions that children and animals do actions with non rational feelings. (1111a25-35) At this point in the argument, the Aristotle’s claims about voluntary actions are insufficient.
First, because it is stated that children and animals are responsible for their actions and their actions are voluntary. This idea goes against our common sense entirely. These proxies are not developed enough to make decisions for themselves, and this is why there is more leniency when it comes to children making mistakes. For example, if a child commits a serious crime, generally they are punished in a juvenile court rather than an adult court. This is because it is realized that they are not fully grown or developed to make good decisions all the time. Juvenile courts’s punishments are usually less harsh than adult courts. Aristotle then begins to form his arguments about the other aspects of the notion of the voluntary. This part of the argument helps to make a connection between voluntary actions and how they relate to responsibility, moral responsibility to be specific. In the beginning of this area of text, Aristotle goes through what the circumstances must be for us to consider an action involuntary. “Actions are not considered voluntary, then, if (1) they are done in ignorance; (2) or they are not done in ignorance, but they are not up to the agent; (3) or they are done by force. For we also do or undergo many of our natural actions and processes, such as growing old and dying, in knowledge, but none of them is either voluntary or involuntary.”
(1135a31-b2)
This passage clarifies the three reasons in which an action is not considered voluntary. Two of the reasons have already been recognized and clarified earlier in this paper; an action done by ignorance and an action done out of force. Aristotle says this third reason is “not up to the agent.” This obviously does not mean that the cause of the action is external, or this reason would be identical to the third reason in the above quoted paragraph. An example of this last category is a man growing old. But the cause is also not external to the agent.
“… when acting is up to us, so is not acting, and when no is up to us, so is yes. And so if acting, when it is fine, is up to us, not acting, when it is shameful, is also up to us; and if not acting, when it is fine, is up to us, then acting, when it is shameful, is also up to us.”
This passage clarifies the point that when an action is up to us, we have the option to perform it or not, and it is ultimately our decision. For example, dying is not up to us even though their cause is within us, but we are not able to avoid growing old or dying. These type of events have no way of being affected by our wants or beliefs. This is the reason that Aristotle states that there is a nature to everything that happens to us, something like fate. Nature is the cause of things like developing grey hair, and growing old, and they are independent of us and the things we want. This makes it obvious that things like these are most definitely not voluntary. It can now be stated that an action is voluntary if it is performed with knowledge of the circumstances around it, the cause is internal to the proxy, and if it is up to the patient whether or not they do it. At this point, most of Aristotle’s argument has been clarified, mainly with the exception of one. Aristotle now goes into detail about to the two ways a person can willingly harm a community. The first way is by non rational feelings. A person can perform an act without thinking beforehand and deliberating. This means the action was called by impulse or appetite. Actions in these situations are considered voluntary, because there is knowledge surrounding them so the cause of them being taken is mental/internal. It could be said that the proxy in this situation acted unjustly, but is not necessarily an unjust person. The second way a person can willingly harm their surrounding community is by vice. An action caused by vice is also voluntary. Like the first way to willingly harm a community (by non rational feelings) it is performed with knowledge of the circumstances. But the difference is that in this case there aren't non rational feelings involved, there was decision involved previously. This type of case is important because it reveals that there is a vice present somewhere in the proxy. This person makes a premeditated decision to act unjustly, therefore his character is unjust. In conclusion, we continue to see the proving of Aristotle’s claim that we know the person we become is directly correlated with the our choices, whether they are right or wrong. It is impossible to for a proxy to act unjustly while he desires to have a just character. This aspect applies to both children and adults. If a person wants their character to be considered just, they will show that with their actions, by making them only in a just manner. If I were to enter myself into some of these situations, I would think that I should be held accountable for more than Aristotle would say I should. There are times that it would be clear that a person is not to blame for something, but as stated above, we always have a choice with the exception of a few cases. The obvious ones are growing old or dying, but things other that that we have a say in. So there is always another option. I think in today’s society especially, people aren't held responsible for enough things, or the wrong things. Rather than prosecuting people for recreational drugs, there should be more focus on serious crimes that genuinely effect people’s lives. This text basically proves that there is no such thing as permanent moral disposition. We can change the decisions we make to change the way our character is viewed by us and others. Aristotle makes it clear that we always have a choice, and we can always recover from our vices - although it isn't always an easy process. We must build our character through lots of action, and it can be broken within a matter of seconds. Aristotle still seems to miss some things in his argument. He also seems to contradict some of the things he initially says later in the text. It could definitely be made more clear, but it is obvious that this text was written without the intent of someone reading it - especially in this time period.
to hold a person responsible for their actions, and under what conditions is it not acceptable? Aristotle claims in Book III that responsibility is placed on a person when their action is voluntary. But it is slightly unclear as to what makes an action voluntary or not. Actions can be divided into two categories, ones that are voluntary and ones that are not voluntary. After that, those things that “are not voluntary” can be divided into non-voluntary and involuntary actions. For an action to be considered voluntary the cause must be within the proxy (since it could be either a person or an animal) and the action must not be taken out of ignorance. And if an action is consider non-voluntary the cause must be outside the proxy or caused by ignorance, the opposite of an action that is voluntary. Aristotle talks about how force comes into play in this entire situation, and an action becomes not voluntary if the force is external to the proxy. He uses the example of a person getting picked up by a strong wind, it would be clear that that happened by force, and was not voluntary. Even if the cause is internal, rather than external, there are some cases that Aristotle still believes are non-voluntary. This is when the action comes about by ignorance. Yet, there is a distinction between ignorant actions. The main difference is between actions caused by ignorance and an action done in ignorance. An action is caused by ignorance if it is done because the proxy ignores the details of the action. In these cases, the proxy truly doesn't know who is feeling the affects of the action and what the eventual consequences may be. An example of this type of situation would be a child taking a sip of grape juice, not knowing that it is wine. Oppositely, an action done in ignorance is when the proxy is perfectly knowledgeable of all the different aspects their action could have an affect on. In the context of Nicomachean Ethics, the ignorance is referring to what kind of actions we should do or not. And Aristotle says this ignorance is the cause of a vice. Aristotle uses the example of a thief robbing a bank. The thief knows exactly what he's doing when taking the action of robbing that bank, and he goes ahead and does it anyways. (1110b25-1111a7) These two different forms of ignorance relate to two separate stages of “practical syllogism.” A proxy could know what kind of action must be taken in a certain situation, but still does the wrong thing due to ignorance. A proxy in this situation, would not be held accountable because they would not be considered vicious, rather that the proxy was placed in unfavorable circumstances. These circumstances didn't allow the proxy too understand all of the variables that surrounded his action choice. In contrast, a proxy who does know the details of an action is blamed because his action is an indicator of a vice. So when an action is done in ignorance it is voluntary, but when it is done by ignorance it is considered non-voluntary. Now there is a distinction between the actions that Aristotle considers voluntary and the actions he does not consider voluntary. Aristotle then begins to show the differences between the non-voluntary and the involuntary actions. Both categories are done by ignorance, but there is a difference that distinguishes between these two types of actions. It has to do with the proxy becoming aware of details that were ignored earlier. The proxies that look back on their passed actions and regret them are said to have performed them involuntarily. He realizes that his actions were not a valid representation of his character, and if he had known the particulars of his action at that time then he wouldn't have done it. Oppositely, those who look back on their passed poor actions and see nothing wrong with them, even after realizing the circumstances of their action, are said to have taken that action non voluntary. This is because the action is not contrary to the proxy’s character. To say in conclusion that an action is voluntary does not necessarily mean that the action was taken rationally by the proxy. Sometimes actions that are caused by impulse or appetite can also be voluntary. Oppositely, Aristotle states that we should not say animals or children do voluntary actions. This is because the actions that children and animals do actions with non rational feelings. (1111a25-35) At this point in the argument, the Aristotle’s claims about voluntary actions are insufficient.
First, because it is stated that children and animals are responsible for their actions and their actions are voluntary. This idea goes against our common sense entirely. These proxies are not developed enough to make decisions for themselves, and this is why there is more leniency when it comes to children making mistakes. For example, if a child commits a serious crime, generally they are punished in a juvenile court rather than an adult court. This is because it is realized that they are not fully grown or developed to make good decisions all the time. Juvenile courts’s punishments are usually less harsh than adult courts. Aristotle then begins to form his arguments about the other aspects of the notion of the voluntary. This part of the argument helps to make a connection between voluntary actions and how they relate to responsibility, moral responsibility to be specific. In the beginning of this area of text, Aristotle goes through what the circumstances must be for us to consider an action involuntary. “Actions are not considered voluntary, then, if (1) they are done in ignorance; (2) or they are not done in ignorance, but they are not up to the agent; (3) or they are done by force. For we also do or undergo many of our natural actions and processes, such as growing old and dying, in knowledge, but none of them is either voluntary or involuntary.”
(1135a31-b2)
This passage clarifies the three reasons in which an action is not considered voluntary. Two of the reasons have already been recognized and clarified earlier in this paper; an action done by ignorance and an action done out of force. Aristotle says this third reason is “not up to the agent.” This obviously does not mean that the cause of the action is external, or this reason would be identical to the third reason in the above quoted paragraph. An example of this last category is a man growing old. But the cause is also not external to the agent.
“… when acting is up to us, so is not acting, and when no is up to us, so is yes. And so if acting, when it is fine, is up to us, not acting, when it is shameful, is also up to us; and if not acting, when it is fine, is up to us, then acting, when it is shameful, is also up to us.”
This passage clarifies the point that when an action is up to us, we have the option to perform it or not, and it is ultimately our decision. For example, dying is not up to us even though their cause is within us, but we are not able to avoid growing old or dying. These type of events have no way of being affected by our wants or beliefs. This is the reason that Aristotle states that there is a nature to everything that happens to us, something like fate. Nature is the cause of things like developing grey hair, and growing old, and they are independent of us and the things we want. This makes it obvious that things like these are most definitely not voluntary. It can now be stated that an action is voluntary if it is performed with knowledge of the circumstances around it, the cause is internal to the proxy, and if it is up to the patient whether or not they do it. At this point, most of Aristotle’s argument has been clarified, mainly with the exception of one. Aristotle now goes into detail about to the two ways a person can willingly harm a community. The first way is by non rational feelings. A person can perform an act without thinking beforehand and deliberating. This means the action was called by impulse or appetite. Actions in these situations are considered voluntary, because there is knowledge surrounding them so the cause of them being taken is mental/internal. It could be said that the proxy in this situation acted unjustly, but is not necessarily an unjust person. The second way a person can willingly harm their surrounding community is by vice. An action caused by vice is also voluntary. Like the first way to willingly harm a community (by non rational feelings) it is performed with knowledge of the circumstances. But the difference is that in this case there aren't non rational feelings involved, there was decision involved previously. This type of case is important because it reveals that there is a vice present somewhere in the proxy. This person makes a premeditated decision to act unjustly, therefore his character is unjust. In conclusion, we continue to see the proving of Aristotle’s claim that we know the person we become is directly correlated with the our choices, whether they are right or wrong. It is impossible to for a proxy to act unjustly while he desires to have a just character. This aspect applies to both children and adults. If a person wants their character to be considered just, they will show that with their actions, by making them only in a just manner. If I were to enter myself into some of these situations, I would think that I should be held accountable for more than Aristotle would say I should. There are times that it would be clear that a person is not to blame for something, but as stated above, we always have a choice with the exception of a few cases. The obvious ones are growing old or dying, but things other that that we have a say in. So there is always another option. I think in today’s society especially, people aren't held responsible for enough things, or the wrong things. Rather than prosecuting people for recreational drugs, there should be more focus on serious crimes that genuinely effect people’s lives. This text basically proves that there is no such thing as permanent moral disposition. We can change the decisions we make to change the way our character is viewed by us and others. Aristotle makes it clear that we always have a choice, and we can always recover from our vices - although it isn't always an easy process. We must build our character through lots of action, and it can be broken within a matter of seconds. Aristotle still seems to miss some things in his argument. He also seems to contradict some of the things he initially says later in the text. It could definitely be made more clear, but it is obvious that this text was written without the intent of someone reading it - especially in this time period.