In Book III of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he discusses the topic of involuntary, voluntary, and mixed actions. He states that “to distinguish the voluntary and the involuntary is presumable necessary for those who are studying the nature of virtue (140; Book III, Section 1).” He lays out how someone can distinguish between voluntary and involuntary actions, but mixed actions are a bit harder to distinguish. The topic of mixed actions raises the debate of whether mixed actions are really just voluntary actions, or if they are rather involuntary actions. I shall argue that mixed actions are really just voluntary actions.
Aristotle defines involuntary actions as those that take place as a result of compulsion or as a result of ignorance, …show more content…
Although they would not have made the decision under normal circumstances, they still had the opportunity to choose between the alternative options in the moment of action. In that moment a person may feel as though the action is something they have to do and therefore they do not have control over it, but they were given an initial choice. This choice can be considered involuntary in the particulars, but it was distinguishable as a voluntary action when alternative was chosen. For this reason, the objection that mixed actions are involuntary based on the fact that people would not make the same decision under normal circumstances, is not fatal to my argument that mixed actions are actually voluntary actions.
As mentioned above, one argument for why mixed actions are voluntary actions is the fact that people are afforded the opportunity of free choice. As Aristotle states, “Such actions then are mixed, but are more like voluntary actions for they are worthy of choice at the time when they are done, and the end of an action is relative to the occasion (141; Book III, Section 1).” By this, Aristotle is stating that at the time when the action is done the person has the opportunity to choose between two alternatives. Since the person has the choice, and is not forced into a decision, the action is therefore
Aristotle defines involuntary actions as those that take place as a result of compulsion or as a result of ignorance, …show more content…
Although they would not have made the decision under normal circumstances, they still had the opportunity to choose between the alternative options in the moment of action. In that moment a person may feel as though the action is something they have to do and therefore they do not have control over it, but they were given an initial choice. This choice can be considered involuntary in the particulars, but it was distinguishable as a voluntary action when alternative was chosen. For this reason, the objection that mixed actions are involuntary based on the fact that people would not make the same decision under normal circumstances, is not fatal to my argument that mixed actions are actually voluntary actions.
As mentioned above, one argument for why mixed actions are voluntary actions is the fact that people are afforded the opportunity of free choice. As Aristotle states, “Such actions then are mixed, but are more like voluntary actions for they are worthy of choice at the time when they are done, and the end of an action is relative to the occasion (141; Book III, Section 1).” By this, Aristotle is stating that at the time when the action is done the person has the opportunity to choose between two alternatives. Since the person has the choice, and is not forced into a decision, the action is therefore