Aristotle Voluntary Action

In this paper, I will examine Aristotle’s view on how virtuous action differs from that of craft (techne) action due to its issuing from a firm and unchanging disposition, as well as provide Aristotle’s reasoning as to why this is the case. In order to understand the differences between these two types of actions, one must first understand the similarities that both virtuous action and craft action share. Once the common traits of both virtuous and craft action have been examined, it will be possible to gain a better understanding of the differences between the two types of action, and how significant these differences truly are. Finally, once an understanding of both virtuous and craft action has been established, it will then be possible to examine Aristotle’s claim that virtuous action stems from a firm and unchanging disposition and why it is that we must accept this claim to recognize virtuous action for what it is.

Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.

In this essay, I aim to prove that Socrates’s committed just act by examine surrendering his life. To do this, I will examine the arguments made by Plato to convince Socrates to escape from prison, as well as evaluating Socrates’s arguments against escaping from prison, while arguing that Socrates’s arguments were stronger. I will start by examining Plato’s arguments, and then move into Socrates’s arguments, while pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of both. I will touch on all of Socrates’s main arguments, however I will focus mainly on his argument that committing unjust actions can be harmful to one’s soul, and that having a ruined soul would render life not worth living.

In Episode #10, how does Aristotle address the issue of individual rights and the freedom to choose?

The book starts to build up the framework for resolving right versus right based off of Aristotle’s view of sleep ethics. Sleep ethics relies on “insights, feelings, and instincts” (Badaracco, 42) to solve moral dilemma and is also known as ethics intuition. Aristotle highly view intuition because it is “more reliable in deliberation than detached intellectual judgments” (Badaracco, 52) and that it “could penetrate to the essence of the issue” (Badaracco, 52). Aristotle’s sleep ethics supplements criteria to denounce me-ism and support development of ethical character. He purposefully made the criteria vague for people “to reflect on who they are and what they hope to become, to feel and act on what they cares the most deeply about, to make commitments and try to live by them” (Badaracco,

At the heart of the issue that Goodman presents in this article is the unifying theme that runs concurrent through all four stratifications of immoral acts: they all, essentially, present instances in which someone is enforcing his or her will on another, to the contrary of the volition of that other party. Such a practice appears to be morally incorrect, as a number of deontologists (most notably Immanuel Kant) would vociferously argue. A consideration of the four types of actions delineated by Goodman

In “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives,” Philippa Foot argues that moral judgments are in hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives. For Kant, categorical imperatives are actions that are good in themselves and do not depend on desires, while, hypothetical imperatives are “actions that are good to some purpose” (306). According to Foot, hypothetical imperatives alone serve as the basis of moral judgments because categorical imperatives give us no reason to obey them. In this paper, I will explain foots argument that moral judgments are hypothetical imperatives. I will then argue that that Foot’s theory of moral judgments fails in two ways. First, placing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives fails to designate moral from immoral contingent ends, and second, the hypothetical imperative weakens morality by making it too optional. To show this, I will first argue that placing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives begs the question of what is the moral basis of its own contingent end. I will then propose a decision procedure for determining the moral value of the contingent ends of hypothetical imperatives. Then I will argue that the Leningrad does not solve and that basing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives still makes morality too optional.

What it means to be Just. – PSC-142-011, Int to Amer Gov: Struc & Funct Aristotle

Aristotle describes voluntary actions as those actions driven by an individual's ambition, passions or desires. "It is only voluntary feelings and actions for which praise and blame are given" (Book.III Ch.I). Praise and blame presuppose that our actions are done voluntarily. The

While many other philosophers were concerned with two causes, Aristotle concerned himself with Four Causes. The Greek translation of αἴτιον pronounced aition, has been insufficiently translated as causes, but it should read “cross-examination.” In these Four Causes, Aristotle aspires to discern and examine all possible aspects of a type of being. For the sake of this essay, Aristotle’s Four Causes will be applied to the human type of being.

In general, humans have the ability to think through their decision and choose which course of action to take. On the conceptual level, it seems easy to determine voluntary from involuntary acts. However, in real world decisions, some of the distinctions between the two are not as clear and the type of action is blurred. In this paper, I will defend Aristotle view’s on the grey, or “mixed,” areas of voluntary and involuntary actions.

In this sense, a person can do the “right” thing, but if it is not done by his own will or choice, it is not morally virtuous. The claims of Books II and III directly contradict each other. The former argues that force must play a part in the development of moral virtue, while the latter explicitly states that what is done by force is not at all morally virtuous.

In The Trial and Death of Socrates, the question is posed to the philosopher whether it is right to act in one's own best interest or to obey the State. Crito argues that the State's punishment of Socrates is unjust, but Socrates argues rather that authority comes from God and that to flee the State's decision would be like fleeing God, which would neither be good nor in one's best interest. According to the teaching of Confucius, Socrates would have been following the principle of "Jên," which can be translated to mean "goodness." This paper will show why Socrates was right to obey the State and drink the poison; it will also show how the teaching of Confucius on goodness supports this decision and how Confucius' teachings, on account of their appeal to Goodness, are suppressed in a system of tyranny, where Goodness is essentially outlawed.

In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, every point, every major idea, and every argument made, is all connected back to the concept that every action seeks an ultimate good. Aristotle felt that there is an intrinsic good that humans aim for and that there is this "good life" we all mean to have. However, what does it mean to be good? That means something different to everyone; we all inhabit many different roles in our day to day lives, whether we strive to be a good parent, a good sibling, a good student, a good citizen, or a good leader. All emphasize the importance of our own well-being, as well as that of others, and the greater community as a whole. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will

Voluntary acts are acts that are the opposite of involuntary acts. A voluntary act involves choice that human beings are only capable of. The choice that one makes is different from rage or desire. “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” (Book III). True choice requires rational consideration, an ability unique to human beings, which also means that the human being choosing can verify that one action is preferable to another. An example of voluntary action is the decision to play a sport for school or not. Playing a sport for school may take time out of your studies, but at the same time, make you become better physically fit and an overall better person by learning things about yourself and about life. That student has to make that decision if he wants to feel better about himself physically or concentrate more on his