Nicomachean Ethics Book III

In the first chapter of Book III, Aristotle discusses and attempts to define involuntary and voluntary actions. The determination of voluntary or involuntary is important in determining whether an action is virtuous according to Aristotle's definition. Virtue only consists of voluntary actions and thus being virtuous is entirely up to the individual. This is not however the same as saying every individual can be virtuous. Aristotle also notes that the distinction between voluntary and involuntary is important in the making of legislation.

Involuntary actions, according to Aristotle are either forced by an external principle, in which the agent contributes nothing, or caused by ignorance. The example for this source of involuntary action is the wind blowing a person through a window. In this case, “the agent”, the person contributes nothing, and is forced by the external principle of the wind. I wonder, does a situation in which an individual acts on something accidently count as involuntary? Does a person who while driving in their car accidently hits somebody (and it’s the drivers fault) deserve some reprimand? To what extent does intent matter when determining what is voluntary or involuntary?

However, situations in which the agent is forced to commit actions by either a positive or negative source are “mixed” but considered voluntary. This means that such actions are subject to either praise or shame, can be virtuous and can be punishable by legislation. An example of this sort of action would be if a tyrant threatens you by demanding that you do something shameful or else he will kill your family. In such situations, one is responsible for his/her own actions and thus must weigh the good vs. the bad in making each decision in order to reach a virtuous outcome. I believe that by killing one innocent person in order to save 1,000 innocent people from certain death, one is voluntary and acting virtuously. Should it still be illegal to kill someone in order to save others? Are we in the right to make decisions on life or death as mere human beings? What is the virtuous course of action?

Another important distinction comes in the statement; actions which are done in ignorance but not by ignorance are voluntary. For example, committing an action in a drunken stupor or out of rage is considered voluntary. Lastly, one cannot claim that their actions are merely a result of their spirit and appetite and thus are involuntary. The idea of intent is important when discussing these types of situations. What interests me most about this chapter is the idea of ignorance. In my opinion, an ignorant mother, who drinks during her pregnancy because she has never heard that drinking does harm to the unborn child is still at fault because her ignorance is inexcusable. Like in the case of the drunk, the woman’s ignorance is caused be her own fault, her lack of research into the birthing process. The only acceptable ignorance is that of an innocent child and all other forms of ignorance are the fault of the person’s inadequacies. Others may disagree with me and say, a person who grows up in a society that teaches wrong practices has no choice but to act in that manner. My response is that these people have no chance of being virtuous and that is why Aristotle says only a virtuous society can produce virtuous people.

In the second chapter, Aristotle discusses decision which to him seems “most proper in virtue.” Decision is a more specific subset of voluntary action, which excludes children and animals. Decision involves rational and reason. Aristotle goes on to explain that decision is not appetite, wish or belief. I agree with Aristotle that decision is key factor in virtue. If someone only saves a bus of children in order to be famous then they are acting on appetite and not decision and are not acting virtuously. However, this chapter almost seems to contradict Aristotle’s earlier beliefs that virtue is not something that you have to think about but something you just do.