Aristotle Voluntary Action Analysis

Virtue is a particular moral excellence, a beneficial quality, or power of a thing, and masculine strength or courage. At the end of the Meno, Socrates states that the hypothesis, "if knowledge is virtue, it can be taught." 1 The

Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they’re the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed persons. The first person is the virtuous person, Aristotle believes that a virtuous person is a person that behaves in a highly well-mannered way. A virtuous person knows how to act as a mean within the deficiency (too little) and excess (too much). “Hence virtue is a sort of medial condition because it is able to aim at and hit the mean.” (2.6 1106b27-1106b28) The virtuous person often does things through habit and continuous practice rather than having someone teach them because it can’t be taught. “From this, it is also clear that none of the virtues of character comes about in you naturally, since nothing natural can be habituated to be otherwise.” (2.1 1103a18-1103a19) Virtuous persons don’t let things overcome who they truly are, meaning their attitudes are at an even level when it comes to pleasures and pains. Virtuous persons can’t let things get the best of them, which is why the mean is so important because it gives balance and clear judgement.

Socrates believed the possession of virtue was a highly valued characteristic. Although Socrates gives no clear definition of virtue it can be inferred that he is referring to the moral responsibility to do the right thing despite your own personal interest. According to Socrates, an ideal leader should be virtuous in their decisions in order to create a society founded on justice. To Machiavelli it is more important to act like you

Aristotle makes a fine distinction between involuntary and nonvoluntary actions. According to Aristotle, ignorance of the particular facts of a given situation may be excused; however, ignorance of acceptable versus unacceptable behavior is evil and cannot be excused. Also if someone commits an act, then that action's classification is based on the person's response to the consequences of the action. For instance a woman swinging a bat, and unbeknownst to her, a little boy walks directly behind her and is then struck in the head. The woman, overcome with regret, acted involuntarily; however if the woman saw the consequences act without regret, her act would be classified as non voluntary. The situation is not voluntary, but how the woman responded was voluntary. "…and the man who does not repent may, since he is different, be called a not voluntary agent; for, since he differs from the other, it is better that he should have a name of his own" (Book III Ch. I).

Therefore, if these things are not exchanged with the help of wisdom then Socrates believes that the aspect of virtue is “…a mere illusion.” (Phaedo 69b). In conclusion, Socrates view on morality is based upon justice, examining how to live, and expanding one’s wisdom.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

For example, he would have seen the son as culpable for his actions, due to the fact that they were distinctly made choices, rather than voluntary actions. These choices showed that the son was clearly not acting in a virtuous manner. The father also made choices in this parable, but his choices would be seen by Aristotle as much more virtuous. He loves his son to such a degree that he is willing to make sacrifices for him. This courage to save his son is relative, however. If someone who did not feel the same connection and love for the boy saved him from his bad decision-making, they would be seen as even more virtuous because they are saving someone to whom they have absolutely no

The effect of becoming a person full of virtue is illustrated through the characteristics of kindliness, temperance and loyalty. Virtue is caused by the “good” actions of people; Seneca illustrates this through various essential

On the other hand, Aristotle would take a different approach. Aristotle believed in virtue ethics. This type of theory bases all on moderation. It also asks the question of what makes a person moral, instead of what acts are moral. Reason is directly correlated with a virtue that we have become accustom to. When evaluating this situation, we have to ask, "What is a virtue?" Virtues are traits of a person's character that are habitual actions that are good for that particular person to possess. We also need to know character traits of the virtue. These character traits consist of things like being nice to each other, sharing your possessions with those less fortunate, caring for people, etc. With this incident we know that you are showing compassion, thoughtfulness, friendliness, etc by helping this elderly man. By having these qualities you did not have to think about what you were doing and you assisted the man because of you possessed these virtues. So in this situation, Aristotle would say that it was a moral act. You are a virtuous person that is why you did the action. It was habitual and the reason you did it was because it was directly correlated to the virtues you possessed.

Furthermore, Aristotle believes when the virtuous person does an action only through the sake of it self there is no other means to the end and one will eventually become virtuous. However, when the action is preformed for the sake of something else, then a person will not reach the highest form of virtue. The reason for this is when the action that is preformed for the sake of something else, then it will not reach complete happiness because it will always desire more.

Having stated, all the views of other philosophers, Aristotle tries to attack against those who say that pleasure is wholly negative. In his opinion, there are many types of pleasures and some come from doing good deeds while others come from base sources, e.g. the pleasure of helping a handicapped person wouldn’t be considered bad. According to Aristotle, humans are above the animals and plants because humans have the power to reason, therefore they can live actively in accordance with the virtues. One cannot get the pleasure of the just man without being just (1173b, 29-31). Again, they are depended upon the situation and the agent, e.g. a person with a sick mind would find disgraceful pleasures pleasant and a normal person would find them unpleasant. What is good for one person and bad for another. One might enjoy drinking too much liquor and the diabetic person eating sugary things. These are just temporary pleasures, but have a negative effect on the body. There are many things we should do, even if they don’t bring any pleasure, e.g. seeing and remembering. Therefore pleasure is not good nor it’s

Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn

In this section of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives his ideas on voluntary, involuntary and not voluntary actions, when one should praise or blame someone, and does ignorance justify wrongful doings. Aristotle believed that in order for someone to be praised or blamed, an individual must do actions voluntarily. If the action is completed involuntarily, persons can no longer be subject to praise or blame, but rather to pity and pardon. Doing things voluntarily, are conscious actions made by a person, an example would be choosing to turn off your car so that it doesn’t idle and unnecessarily pollute the environment. Recognizing that polluting the environment is detrimental long term, and making a decision to reduce extensive damage on a small scale by turning off the car.

As we know Aristotle was accused of the same crime as Socrates, but instead of death, which Socrates chose, Aristotle chose exile. It was important to understand that Socrates and Aristotle were very different in comparison. While Aristotle lived in Athens, he was noncitizen which I believe contributed to his decision to choose exile. Also, Aristotle was very curious about his world and surroundings, and believed there was so much we, humans, can learn from it, in turn his devotion spread widely to the world rather than specifically just to Athens. He was very instrumental in founding the sciences. (Rosenstand) Aristotle’s decision made sense because of his belief of the Gold Mean, courage meant thinking and acting at the right time, in the

In Book X, Aristotle writes about the relationship between contemplation and happiness (1177a12-18). He defines pleasure as the greatest and most important good, because pleasure can be lived at its finest stage and that is what makes it a good. Contemplation is the highest form of any activity because it happens constantly; it gives pleasure and is independent from other (. It does not stop or only happen for a very short time. It rather continues to happen. Further on, he talks about happiness and how it is related to pleasure and contemplation. Happiness is the goal of every person’s life and in relation to that the highest form of happiness is contemplation (1174b21-24). Contemplation is the finest form of happiness because it appears to us at our greatest capacities, at its greatest moment (1174b29-30). He distinguishes two part of contemplation: the rational and the intellectual (1177a14-16). These two distinguishes are what proves that humans and animals have some main differences. Humans have the ability to be rational and they have the capacity to be intellectual (1177a21-23).