In the third book of his publication, “The Nicomachean Ethics”, the philosopher Aristotle elaborates on the arguments which he has presented concerning moral virtues, and invokes the concepts of voluntary and involuntary actions, choice, and responsibility to support his claims. The first segment within Book III of The Nicomachean Ethics concentrates on the conditions required for a person to either praise or blame another individual with regards to the actions that the other party has undertaken. On the aforesaid matter, Aristotle suggests that individuals should be praised when the hardships associated with their actions result in noteworthy successes; while on the reverse, also states that people should be blamed when their endeavours are
…show more content…
In Book III of The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle suggests that an involuntary act occurs when the motivating factor prompting the action stems from the circumstances afflicting the individual who is obligated to make a decision, and does not occur at the exclusive discretion of the person. Supplementary to the aforementioned notion, Aristotle also suggests that voluntary actions are those where the incentive inspiring the act are derived from the discretion of the individual themselves; albeit one who is aware of the circumstances afflicting them but does not act merely because of them. Central to Aristotle’s theory regarding the distinction between actions that are either voluntary or involuntary is the concept of intention as an agent that influences the decision-making process. Intention may be defined as the underlying motivational force that encourages an individual to act in a particular manner, and is often established by a combination of competing factors, namely the moral values which the individual possesses, and the circumstances afflicting the individual when they must make a choice. Fundamentally, whether an act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary is primarily contingent upon …show more content…
Aristotle begins his address of this matter by making a distinction between those acts which are not voluntary, and actions that are involuntary; with the former referring to activities undertaken due to a person’s ignorance, and the latter referring to acts which are committed as a result of external compulsion. The distinction which Aristotle makes between these two types of non-voluntary actions alludes to the vital role which context plays in an individual’s decision making process, and emphasizes the importance of knowledge as a means for countering ignorant choices. Furthermore, to reinforce his philosophy regarding the pardoning of someone’s behaviour, Aristotle dedicates a large segment of section one to the description of ignorance, and how it possesses several dissimilar connotations. In Book III, the term ignorance is used as a means for determining which type of non-voluntary action someone has committed, and is divided into two separate denotations; acting in ignorance, and acting as a result of ignorance. When someone acts in ignorance, they are behaving in a manner that they do not truly understand and may thus demonstrate remorse for their performance, whilst a person acting because of ignorance is indifferent towards their conduct and is therefore acting from ignorance.
In Book III of The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle suggests that an involuntary act occurs when the motivating factor prompting the action stems from the circumstances afflicting the individual who is obligated to make a decision, and does not occur at the exclusive discretion of the person. Supplementary to the aforementioned notion, Aristotle also suggests that voluntary actions are those where the incentive inspiring the act are derived from the discretion of the individual themselves; albeit one who is aware of the circumstances afflicting them but does not act merely because of them. Central to Aristotle’s theory regarding the distinction between actions that are either voluntary or involuntary is the concept of intention as an agent that influences the decision-making process. Intention may be defined as the underlying motivational force that encourages an individual to act in a particular manner, and is often established by a combination of competing factors, namely the moral values which the individual possesses, and the circumstances afflicting the individual when they must make a choice. Fundamentally, whether an act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary is primarily contingent upon …show more content…
Aristotle begins his address of this matter by making a distinction between those acts which are not voluntary, and actions that are involuntary; with the former referring to activities undertaken due to a person’s ignorance, and the latter referring to acts which are committed as a result of external compulsion. The distinction which Aristotle makes between these two types of non-voluntary actions alludes to the vital role which context plays in an individual’s decision making process, and emphasizes the importance of knowledge as a means for countering ignorant choices. Furthermore, to reinforce his philosophy regarding the pardoning of someone’s behaviour, Aristotle dedicates a large segment of section one to the description of ignorance, and how it possesses several dissimilar connotations. In Book III, the term ignorance is used as a means for determining which type of non-voluntary action someone has committed, and is divided into two separate denotations; acting in ignorance, and acting as a result of ignorance. When someone acts in ignorance, they are behaving in a manner that they do not truly understand and may thus demonstrate remorse for their performance, whilst a person acting because of ignorance is indifferent towards their conduct and is therefore acting from ignorance.