Just to summarize it seems that we are all beginning to doubt the very aim of the class: discovering or even understanding the nature of courage. Many are even asking whether courage is a virtue or whether it is an illusion simply constructed by society at large. This arises from the fact that most of you guys are noticing that a Socratic definition that is "the same in all cases" seems impossible. There is always a refutation to be made for every definition on puts forward. This is due to the fact that many of you constantly appeal to the perspective of the Subject in order to determine whether they embody courage. In this argument some also end up discounting the idea that there is a universal or objective definition of it. In short, who and what courage is is relative to the person, society and situation one finds oneself in. I still persist in wondering though, do we really believe this?
Turning now to Aristotle, read the first half of the text on blackboard and tell me what the section of the text is about. Specifically, concentrate on analyzing Aristotle's conditions for moral responsibility. For Aristotle what makes an action praiseworthy? Do you agree or disagree.
See you Friday.
Dr. Layne
in this selection, Aristotle is examining virtue. He says virtue is based on action and feelings, but to fully understand this, we must understand action itself. Voluntary actions are those that stem from within us and that we are aware of the consequences, and inoluntary actions are those whose origin lies outside us and whose consequences we may not be aware of. Aristotle theorizes that virtue as well as vice are voluntary because all things leading to them are voluntary. We wish for an end, deliberate and decide on an action that promotes that end, and then undertake that action. By this reason virtue is voluntary. I disagree because if we wish for an end, then we must know what is virtuous before we wish for it to ensure we wish for the right thing and undertake achieving it. But of course the argument arises that virtue is relative to culture, so the best I can say is to to know what values in your culture are virtuous and aim to achieve those.
ReplyDeleteWow...okay. This first section is written meticulously, as is, from what I understand or have read, all of Aristotle's work.He begins by discussing virtue, and immediately begins discussing voluntary and involuntary actions. He does not firmly define virtue, but, being that this is book three, I presume he did it earlier. Anyways, he defines voluntary and in-voluntary actions, and compulsions that make actions in-voluntary- such as torture. However, he later makes it clear that drunkenness is not an excuse for classifying an action as in-voluntary, as the choice to get drunk was a voluntary action. The majority of this section is spend discussing will and virtue, and choice and wish- their subtle distinctions and variations. He also discusses how we come to debate choices- by starting at the end, then debating the means to that end.
ReplyDeleteThis serves to underline the importance of choice in our decisions, and leads to Aristotle arguing that virtue must be a choice- and the praiseworthy part of any virtue, or action, is the choice made. I tend to agree in that virtue must be something done out of free, conscious, will. Although perception of virtue can be relative to society, every individual had an individual idea of what he considers to be right or wrong, and I think it is virtuous only when a person consciously, actively, decides to do that which he considers to be virtuous.
For example, I would consider it more virtuous for a man to do x, which he considers to be virtuous, than for him to do y, which his society or religion tells him is correct. In short, I consider virtue to be something supremely related to individual perception and belief. Although i believe in absolute good and am not in that sense a relativist at all, I think no one can be expected to know more than what his experience and his conscious tells him.
In the first section of the text, Aristotle examines voluntary, involuntary, and not voluntary actions; choice; deliberation; wish; virtue and vice. I found the very first section of this half extremely overwhelming, in particularly when it addresses involuntary actions. Aristotle defines an involuntary action as those that “take place under compulsory or owing to ignorance.” Later the text also states that an involuntary action also must produce pain and repentance. Because these actions must cause pain and repentance, are these involuntary actions necessarily bad or wrong actions?
ReplyDeleteA not-voluntary action is defined as one done by reason of ignorance. For me, I have trouble making the distinction between “owing to ignorance”, which is in the definition of voluntary action, and “by reason of ignorance.” Is the only difference that a voluntary action must cause pain and repentance?
Besides these questions, I believe I have better grasp on the rest of the text. A not-ignorant person seems to be one that has had misunderstood the situation or mistakenly performed his action. According to Aristotle, these people, along with those whose acts are involuntary, cannot be blamed nor praised for their actions; people are only held responsible for voluntary actions. We choose our most of our voluntary acts after deliberation. This choice is influenced by our wish and opinion of vice and virtue.
I somewhat agree with Aristotle on his view of responsibility. I do believe that you are responsible for voluntary actions. However I believe that on a social level you are still responsible for your not-voluntary actions. Even if it was a mistake, the action was yours. On a moral level, if you truly did not mean your action, then it may not affect your character.
This text was definitely painstakingly written and took me a long time to try and understand the many concepts Aristotle discusses and I am still not sure if I have fully grasped it. Nonetheless Aristotle distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary actions along with the concepts of ignorance power and choice. Involuntary actions are those that derive from force or ignorance and bring some sort of pain. He distinguishes between actions derived “of ignorance” and actions derived “in ignorance.” As I understand, actions that are of ignorance bring unintended consequences because the person truly does not know any different and as a result should not be held accountable. This is understandable because you can only know so much.
ReplyDeleteHowever actions “in ignorance” for example, drunkenness, are not necessarily involuntary as the person had power over his/her own actions of getting drunk. Here the concepts of power and ignorance are linked. I wholeheartedly agree with Aristotle in this respect. We cannot as a society simply say that all actions that are ignorant are involuntary and therefore not to be blamed. This simply makes ignorance an excuse. As human beings interacting in a society much larger than ourselves it is indeed true that we need to hold ourselves responsible for “removing our own ignorance,” as we have the power to do so. When I say remove our own ignorance, I simply mean that there are certain morals in society that we “ought to know” and if we don’t it is through our own carelessness. As Aristotle rightly puts it, “…we are masters of our actions from the beginning right to the end…” Therefore if it is in our power to do acts worth of praise and blame then it virtue is something that is voluntary.
On another note Aristotle also discusses how we make choices by first assuming the end result and then deliberating about the best means to reach that desired result. Choice seems to be linked to virtue as it is our choices that determine our character.This text brings up a lot of points for discussion and I will admit that certain parts still baffle me, so I look forward to further discussion in class.
"These things, then, are thought involuntary, which take place under compulsion or owing to ignorance." Aristotle is trying to state that we must discern between whether or not certain actions are voluntary. So, if an involuntary action is committed, the person is not morally responsible. Aristotle confuses me by describing situations in which an action could or could not be considered involuntary. Apparently, something is voluntary if it produces pleasure but involuntary if it produces pain. There seems to be some middle ground between voluntary and involuntary that has no name or moral significance. I do not understand this at all. And one can act not in ignorance and as a result of ignorance at the same time. I can't read anymore. This is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand what Aristotle is trying to state, but since my natural disposition is to disagree, I will do so (would this be considered involuntary?!). Unless a person is suffering from a mental condition of some sort, and the action in question is not a natural bodily function (breathing, heart beating), or if the body is completely constrained (a paralyzed person cannot choose to walk), then the action, in my opinion, should be considered voluntary. Even if the person is ignorant of all of the details of the issue, he still has a choice. Even if the person is forced into something, he has a choice to face the consequences. If I am held at gunpoint and told to hand over my wallet, I have a choice. One choice may be considered stupid, almost forcing me to take the safer option, but I still have the choice. I could still try to run away or take the gun from him, and could possibly die from doing so. Then again, if I have to read much more Aristotle in my life, this might not be a bad idea. No matter what the situation is, there is always another option. I'm done. See you on Friday.
Love,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Cynic
I found this text incredible overwhelming. I found it difficult to follow since he starts with such a vague topic and attacks it piece by piece. When I was trying to understand a smaller topic, I often forgot the over all purpose of trying to define the term. For example, Aristotle begins by trying to define virtue by passions and actions. Then he goes into voluntary, involuntary and non voluntary actions. He further dissects voluntary and involuntary, going into choice being voluntary. Then going into how opinion is not a choice because opinion is falsity or truth while choice is goodness or badness. It was like trying to follow a very detailed and complicated flow chart where everything is connected and starts going in circles. However, I do not see any other way. If the text had been made more clear, it would have to be simplified. Simplifying would cause loss of information, that would have the text lose its value. I know this because sparknotes tried to simplify the text, and quite honestly, they lost a lot of information that was vital to the meaning of the text.
ReplyDeleteAn idea that Aristotle mentioned that got my attention, was his approach on evil men. He claimed that “ every wicked man is ignorant of what he ought to do and what he ought not do.” It is interesting because I find this statement to vague and quite frankly too bold. Of course we can say that some wicked men do not know what is right and what is wrong, therefore they make the wrong choices. But what about those wicked men that are truly aware of the good and bad? Those that are aware of the circumstances and pain their certain actions will cause? Are there not men who are evil for their own personal gain, regardless of it being knowingly evil? These types of men, to not rightly fit into Aristotle's statement of wicked men. Men who are evil because of their own appetite for power, or gain, are voluntarily making wrong choices for personal gain. How exactly do these types of men fit into Aristotle's claim on wicked men?
I can see where the text can not be simplified, as I said before, because it will lose too much value. Then again, with the example of the definition of a wicked man, the text makes it too difficult to understand what Aristotle is trying t get at. I guess I'm not against, or for, this type of text. I understand the importance of such detail and meticulousness in analyzing every angle, but I also see where ideas get too detailed that it is too hard for readers to follow. Over all I'm overwhelmed and I dread trying to read the rest, for I fear I cannot truly understand the entirety of Aristotle's ideas.
Like Savannah, I found the text a hard read--and not really because I had a hard time understanding the concepts, but because the concepts were put into so many words that I had to read paragraphs over to make sure I'd gotten the gist of everything! However, I found most of his assumptions true. Stated simply, Aristotle observes that one takes moral responsibility for actions he or she is assumed to have instigated, or had a choice in; while one does not need to take responsibility (or, "is forgiven") for actions that happened out of one's moral control (i.e. out of compulsion or ignorance). People tend to operate under those rules. A society as a whole tends to hold up a general idea of absolute good and absolute evil (and I know that we can start arguing about relativism here, but generally, ideas like "killing = bad" are general without going too much into it).
ReplyDeleteHowever, as Aristotle also states, society comes up with conditions for the conditions. Acting out of compulsive anger is better understood than acting out of an impulse of another kind. And while Aristotle was kind of long-winded, I agree with many of his statements.
For example, in general (and I can't stress that phrase enough), murder is considered a bad thing. It constitutes a trip to court. Court does not deal with whether the murder was right or wrong--murder is wrong. However, the circumstances under which it happened are the object in question. The action can be excused--self defense, etc. But murder is still wrong.
I'm getting way too much into example here, so I'll stop myself. But bottom line: I agree with Aristotle's idea about good and bad--that there is an absolute, but that certain bad actions can be excused.
And I guess, on that note, good actions, while in actuality good, can be done for the wrong reasons. The act is still good, but the circumstances can tarnish the act, I suppose.
Okay, seriously stopping now. :)
Umm ok... This was very longwinded and difficult to understand for me... BUT I will try my best to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteI believe Aristotle starts out by examining virtue. He explains that one's actions are basically defined by their will to do the action or not and their knowledge of the consequences. He then moves to explain that one's actions are basically defined by their choices. When making a choice, one has to debate about choosing the correct choice. He then talks about the end versus the means.
Moral responsibility then rests with the individual person in how he/she interprets what "good" is and then acting based off of that interpretation.
He then starts examining the virtues, and he has a somewhat interesting section on courage. Aristotle believes that an action is praiseworthy if the action was performed voluntarily and was for a greater good.
I agree with Aristotle's perception of actions because I believe that everyone is held accountable for their own actions and should be subject to their own consequences instead of trying to pin it on other people.
I, as it seems most of us did, really struggled with this text. However, I think one of the sections that is at the core of Aristotle's entire (lengthy) argument is this, "Now if it is in our power to do noble or base acts, and likewise in our power not to do them, and this was what being good or bad meant, then it is in our power to be villainous or virtuous" (Ch. 5, Line 12).
ReplyDeleteI think that sections basically summarizes what Aristotle is saying as he breaks it down piece by piece. If we agree we have the ability to choose, (which is in his discussion of voluntary or involuntary), AND, we have an equal power to choose an active or passive response (though I think that even a passive response includes an active choice), AND that these choices are how we define good/bad and right/wrong, THEN it is indeed in our power to be either good-natured or evil.
I agree with Aristotle for the most part, although I'm not sure that I agree when it comes to the distinctions between voluntary/involuntary/not voluntary, though I will be honest and say that some of my disagreement with it may be because I don't truly understand what he said. I'm looking forward to the class discussion, which will hopefully shed some light on the more difficult sections.
This section of the book is Aristotle explaining what basis virtue can be viewed (I THINK... <_< it was all pretty much gibberish to me to be completely honest). Specifically whether actions pertaining to a particular virtue are involuntary or voluntary, or whether it is based upon one's opinion, or whether it is based upon forethought and deliberation, etc.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aristotle on some of his accounts of these factors of virtue, but I disagree with even more. For instance, (from what I understand) he claims that human deliberation is all about matters in one's control, as well as a means to an end, rather than the end itself. I disagree with this account in particular because human deliberation is not all about the small matters that affect one person in particular, nor is it about those same small matters that one can control. Take for instance those scientists that contemplate the stars. To what end do they deliberate on them? What purpose? What could they possibly control in the stars?
Furthermore, I also his example of ignorance and voluntary/involuntary actions to be disagreeable. Perhaps it is because I define "voluntary" in a very psychological and literal sense: it is one's willingness to do something. If one must think in order to act, then it is voluntary, no matter the circumstance. Even if one is forced to do the action, one still has a choice NOT to act, whether or not it is for the good of that person.
Aristotle uses many down-to-earth examples, but seems to insist that these accounts of the bases for virtue are true to the end. There are many instances in which one can refute his examples. I may be completely misinterpreting his words, but nevertheless, I disagree with many of his bases of virtue, even if I don't disagree with his IDEA that these bases affect one's virtue.
Okay this text was obviously incredibly hard to comprehend, but I'll do my best to answer the question without rambling and getting my thoughts out of order.
ReplyDeleteIn this section of the text, Aristotle is examining virtue and what people can and can't be held morally responsible for. He notes that people can be held responsible only if they choose to do something, not if they did it involuntarily (I think). He also notes that the involuntary action should cause pain to the person acting it. I agree to some extent, but I still believe that this person should be held responsible, at least a little, for the actions that they have committed.
I agree with Aristotle that the best measure of morality is choice, but I am having a hard time deciphering the fine line between choice and non choice. Maybe it's something in the text that I missed or didn't understand, but what exactly defines the difference between choice and non choice? I, personally, don't think that any actions taken by a human being are involuntary (except maybe when that hypnotist came!), because I feel as though everyone has to have at least some inkling in their own mind on everything that they're doing, from breathing to committing murder. Actually, breathing is a prime example. Everyone says "we do it without thinking." But that's not possible. If NONE OF OUR BRAIN thought about breathing, then there's no way we can do it. So how can someone not be punished for something they did, even if they did it "involuntarily" (or unvoluntarily)?
Wow, I know that was a major ramble session, but now I've completely lost all my train of thought. So I guess I'll see you all in class tomorrow!
Before I start talking about the text, I would like to add the disclaimer that I had a little trouble with it. For one thing I was trying not to fall out of a tree as a read it, but more than that, it was a little heavy for a philosophy newbie such as myself. But on to the substance of this post…
ReplyDeleteThe first section discusses voluntary versus involuntary action. In it, Aristotle comes to the conclusion that actions are involuntary if they are done out of compulsion or made out of ignorance (as long as it isn’t ignorance that could be avoided such as drunkenness) and cause pain, while voluntary actions are ones in which the person had full knowledge about and are generally pleasurable. This leads to Aristotle’s next point, which is about choice. He defines choice as voluntary, though not the same thing. Choice is something that an individual has power over. Choices are made based on rational though about what a person believes to be the “good” choice. He then makes some point about deliberation and how it is about finding the means to obtain an end. His next point is about wishes. He asserts that all people wish for good or the apparent good. He seems to cede that it is possible to have different perceptions of good, but that the “good” man can see the truth of what is really good. This seems to point back to a concept of a “universal truth.” This brings him to discuss virtue. What I think he is getting at in this section is that some people are virtuous by nature and others not so much. But his main point seems to be that people have some degree of control over what type of nature they have. This finally brings him around to courage. In this last part, he discusses courage in terms of fear and confidence and relates it to how people react to death.
From this, it seems that Aristotle believes actions deserve praise when a person voluntarily makes a choice. However, the person must make this choice with the wish that it will bring about good. But not just the apparent good, it must be good that complies with the universal vision of good. I think anyway, I could have misread the text a little.
I agree that this is a good formula for a praiseworthy action, but am torn about the idea of a “universal good.” I can never quite convince myself that perception of good and morals can all be boiled down to a universal truth. I wrestle with the idea of perception and how different people can believe opposite things are good, yet both arguments have truth to them.
These are notes that I had to make for myself in order to help me understand the text. In any case, they get the job done:
ReplyDeleteVoluntary = caused purely by the agent itself and results in pleasantness.
Involuntary = caused by a force outside of the agent, or by the agent in ignorance, and results in pain.
Not Voluntary = caused purely by the agent in ignorance and results in neither pleasantness nor pain.
Choice = acting upon things that are within one’s control, after deliberation, to reach a desired end or avoid an undesired end, with what is desired being unique to each individual.
We deliberate only the means of doing things that are in our control and that periodically have some discrepancies, esp. in deciding upon the best means to reach an end and the reason for this superiority. This deliberation often begins at the result and ends at the source of the subject.
Both virtue and vice are within our power, in that we can choose to act or not act on them. While it is always in our power, the frequency of one over the other in initial choices will dictate future ones, and, thus, the future choices and our state of character are equally voluntary.
(Technically this deals with courage, but I couldn’t stop at chapter 5. It’s not an even division.)
A brave man is fearless, but the fearless man is not necessarily brave. Similarly, one who fears certain fears is not necessarily a coward. The brave man is one who is fearless in the face of a noble death, but also fearless when it comes to other evils.
Much to my surprise, I totally agree with everything Aristotle says (save for his beginning on courage). Perhaps it can be attributed to the fact that I put the argument in my own words, thus skewing the original argument (feel free to point out my folly if anyone thinks this). But I think it just as likely that I agree with him largely BECAUSE he was long-winded and overly specific in his language. In doing this I was able to follow him every step of the way to reach the same conclusion as he. Much like a math proof, I agreed with each individual part and, thus, could do nothing but agree with the whole.
Oh and on the topic of whether courage is merely perception, I read an interesting article a while ago about this researcher's theory about whether or not morals are innate and universal. I thought it was very interesting and kind of relates to the issue we seem to be having about courage being universal. I thought maybe I'd post it incase anyone is interested or bored. It has some interesting points to think about.
ReplyDeletehttp://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morals&b_start:int=0
For Aristotle an action is praiseworthy only if it is voluntary. According to aristotle all actions that are caused by external circumstances that the responder has no part in are involuntary and because the responder has no choice in the situation then no action related to the circumstance can be voluntary.Aristotle also adds that if there is a choice of gaining, as long as the alternative is not going without essentials, it can be voluntary. Every then to aristotle choice does not mean voluntary.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to social responsibility I agree that one is responsible for any wickedness that is voluntary, but I don't think that people who are unjust because they are ignorant (unless they are intentionally ignorant) should be punished as if they were intentionally wicked. Because the virtue of man is to ask questions no man should stay ignorant of his unjust acts. but if ignorance is used as an excuse to intentionally continue in unjust actions this wickedness becomes voluntary and punishable.
I disagree with aristotle that to be praiseworthy a voluntary choice must be made. Some choices we have to make cannot be voluntary, but are still praiseworthy. I would argue that the most praiseworthy actions are results of decisions being forced and circumstances being completely new to the responder. choice is a good mesure of morality but only if unconscious choices are excluded.
This text confused me quite a bit, and I had a very difficult time getting through Aristotle’s words. Aristotle divides actions into three categories: voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Voluntary actions, according to Aristotle, are the only ones that should be considered praiseworthy. A voluntary action is done by a person’s choice, often after deliberation. I somewhat agree with Aristotle in that one should only be praised for something that they willingly and knowingly did. However, I don’t believe that I understood the text well enough to be one hundred percent committed to this idea.
ReplyDeleteTo Aristotle, an action cannot be considered praiseworthy if the person making the action is ignorant of its significance. The person must be aware that his action is virtuous in order for it to be virtuous, otherwise he can be doing something accidentally, in which case no accidental action would be virtuous. I don't think involuntary actions should be considered virtuous because since they are made instinctively, they do not really reflect how virtuous or vicious a person is.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Aristotle's reasoning because he assumes that there are set definitions for things like "sensible men" and "wicked behavior". Some actions instantly appear to be wicked, such as killing innocent people, but then again we would have to make a definition for an "innocent person" when that phrase is just as hard to define as "virtuous" or "vicious" (though most humans would agree that killing just for the sake of killing would be a wicked act). The point being, it is impossible to draw a line between virtuousness and viciousness because those definitions are subjective to everyone's individual perspective. Or at least, people are not either good or bad. Everyone lies somewhere in between, and so it is hard to distinguish an "evil" man from a "virtuous" one. Society makes these labels based on who commits crimes, though some citizens may actually be more "evil" than convicted criminals (Like in the DARK KNIGHT ferry scene).
I have to start out by saying that I’m actually exhausted after reading this. At times it felt like the entire thing was just a really verbose mad-lib that Aristotle filled in with the words voluntary, involuntary, choice, wish, deliberate etc.. To understand it I had to break it down -- my own less educated of version of what Aristotle himself is doing. He is taking these deceptively complex concepts and breaking them down.
ReplyDeleteI looked at each book individually. Book 1 focuses mostly defining voluntary and involuntary. Aristotle explores the exceptions we often make to both of these definitions-- when things can be BOTH. There are times that one acts voluntarily, but in a situation that technically renders the actions voluntary. His example was men tossing goods overboard of a ship in a storm in order to save their crew. Book 2 looked at choice. The most clarifying point to me was this: “[...] wish relates rather to the end, choice to the means.” Book 3 defines deliberation. Aristotle believes that we truly deliberate only about that which is in our power. He also adds that deliberation is for the means and not the end. We think about HOW we want to accomplish the established end. Book 4 explores that end -- wish. Wish is less concrete because we can wish for anything, however we can only apply deliberation and voluntary action (books 3 and 1) if the wish is within our power. Book 5 was more general, discussing things such as good judgement and justice.
The question you pose is a frustrating one. Aristotle, upon my reading, didn’t seem to be addressing how one is morally responsible or what he thinks is praiseworthy. He is diagraming different aspects of virtue, much as we have been doing in class and on this blog. For purposes of my own sanity, I will assume that by “moral responsibility” you mean virtue. Virtue is the answer to your second question as well. The first five books are essentially a diagram of how to build a virtuous existence. What aristotle believes is praiseworthy is the perfect combination of behavior in all the elements addressed: voluntary action, choice, deliberation, choice, and judgement.
Aristotle's conditions for moral responsibility are (1) that the action is voluntary, meaning not done under compulsion or out of ignorance, and (2) that it is done as a choice, whith "a rational principle and thought." Aristotle believed that actions are good which serve as the means to an ultimate, rational end. We must be morally responsible for an action, and it must be a "good" action in order for it to be morally praiseworthy.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if Aristotle does not really lay out the true principles of his ethical system. It's as if he observed who he believed to be the virtuous men of his day and used them as a model for creating his beliefs. In other words, he said that we should be virtuous because that's what the best people do. Why are they the best people? Because they are virtuous. It seems rather circular in a way. He should ask why his society has deemed such traits virtuous, rather than accept that they are so merely because he thinks they are. However, his method of thought is highly creative and scientific. He does a fairly good job defining his terms, and representing them in an orderly fashion.
Aristotle said that our means must be deliberated, but not our end. Why? Isn't it most important to deliberate the end? That part left me confused.
My comments on the Aristotle reading:
ReplyDeleteWTF?!?!?!?!
Archaic syntax+redundancy=Dustin's brain hurts.
I think what Aristotle is trying to say (after attempting to read it and the sparknotes twice) is that you can only gauge a person by what he chooses to do voluntarily. He introduces the idea of voluntary and involuntary actions and, I think, sets guidelines for what can be considered voluntary and involuntary. For Aristotle, an action is praiseworthy if it is in a person’s power to voluntarily choose to perform a noble act and he follows through based on his own deliberation.
I agree mostly with what I think he’s saying. However, I cannot speak for society as a whole, and I think societal preconceptions are what determine praiseworthiness nowadays. Therefore, I don’t think a praiseworthy act can be defined by a single man. I think his outline of praiseworthy acts is similar to the social acceptable norm, which would make him, in theory, correct.
Aristotle focuses on virtue and how the virtuous action should be praised. In his view, the action that is committed in face of a negative incentive is more praise worthy than an action that is not taken in the face of a positive incentive (towards a potentially unvirtuous action.) I disagree with this because I think all virtuous actions are created equal, and that praise should not be considered when pondering an action. Praise should be given to all virtuous actions; however, virtuous actions should not be taken with praise in mind.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of information in thi first section, but I think I understood the main ideas. Aristotle talk about voluntary versus involuntary actions. He argues that if someone knows what is virtuous, then they will not go against that, and therefore people who commit evil acts are ignorant. No one chooses to be evil. I especially agree with that point. I don't think anyone is ever mean or evil for no reason, or "just because." Unkind acts are always a result of something that happened previously to the person who is terrorizing others. I think that misunderstanding is the root of all the world's problems. But that's getting away from the point. Aristotle also says that everyone's view of what is "good" and what is "bad" is different. He talks about "means" "wishes" and "choices," saying that we can wish for a certain outcome, but we cannot choose it. We can only choose the means by which we make our way to a certain destination. He also says that "no one is involuntarily happy, but wickedness is voluntary." Therefore, we are "good" we we choose not to be wicked.
ReplyDeleteAristotle starts by explaining the difference between voluntary and involuntary actions, interestingly including drunkenness as a poor excuse for misdeeds. He claims that, although one may engage in something he or she wouldn't normally engage in while drunk, drinking was a voluntary action and therefore drunkenness can not excuse actions. I find this a very interesting point, considering our generation likes to use the "I was drunk" excuse to solve many problems (and is amused enough by drunkenness to create an entire online community out of the concept [textsfromlastnight.com].
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, he continues to discuss will and virtue in this manner, explaining how we debate actions (by justifying the end rather than the beginning). He continues to argue that virtue is thereby a choice.
For Aristotle, this choice to be virtuous is what is truly praiseworthy, and I would agree, as it seems the rest of society would. Being a virtuous person is certainly praiseworthy; there is a reason that those who have virtue are featured on news programs and are given awards and other recognition. We as a society look to the virtuous as our guides, as people who (seem to) know what is right and act on those assumptions.
Unlike coherent philosophers who organize their thoughts into a logical and easily followed structure (like Descartes in his “Discourse on the method for rightly conducting one’s reason and for seeking truth in the sciences”), Aristotle has taken the route of simply writing down his ramblings and posting them for his readers. In this incoherent flow of random speculations and thoughts, few conclusions can be logically drawn from his works from a simple initial reading. His overall topic is moral virtue and whether or not it is conscious. Upon deciphering his ramblings and self-argumentation, one can see that Aristotle has divided moral virtue as being dependent on voluntary, involuntary, and a separate third category of “not voluntary” choices. I agree with Aristotle’s statement that only voluntary choices should be praised. The reason for this is that this is one of the few things that humans can control, and as such, one of the few things they should be judged on. Involuntary actions are not decided and thus should not be a judgment of character for a particular individual. Aristotle’s third category of “not voluntary” actions also should not be used as a basis for judgment because although these actions represent bad actions created by choice, the reason they were acted upon was because all other actions were deemed worse. Thus, the only logical judgment of a person (be it honor, virtue, overall character, etc) is based on his/her voluntary choices since those are the only choices that individual had full control over. As such, these actions are the only ones which can be deemed praiseworthy by Aristotle’s logic.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Aristotle decided to write a stream-of-consciousness journal concerning virtue and then published it, because the text is certainly long-winded. Much of the explanation of what constitutes involuntary was like reading a tongue-twister of involuntary voluntaries with an agent choice.
ReplyDeleteMoving on...
Involunary- "under compulsion or owing to ignorance"
Voluntary- the opposite of that... deliberate
Moral responsibility lies in the fact that the person knows whether or not the action is wrong and has his or her free will to choose. Choice is the most accurate way to determine whether something is voluntary or not, because choice must have a deliberation process before it is made. The actions taken that are praiseworthy are voluntary and fall in the mean of two extremes. He uses the example of anger (i.e. too little, mistaken for good-tempered. too much, mistaken for manly). This ability to find oneself in the middle is so praiseworthy because it is good and difficult to achieve.
Enough summarizing! I disagree with Aristotle on the sole part that not all people are good, we just aren't. Not everyone wants to be good, sane people that know right from wrong steal, lie, and hurt others. Although in Aristotle's universe there is a common good and bad (which I also don't agree with), even people who have they own version of good and bad go against their "apparent good." Whether it is "actually" right or wrong, they chose bad.
I do agree on what he says makes a virtuous person, however, if taken in the context he provides. The rarity that is someone who is completely diplomatic and vice-free should be lauded
I guess i am not the only one who had difficulty with this text (now i can say i fully understand my reasoning behind being a science major- sheer simplicity!)
ReplyDeleteAristotle talks about virtue and the actions that come with it. While saying virtuous action should be praised, he emphasizes that an action should not be undertaken with praise as its motivator.
Also, i deciphered that he thought One should be praised only for what they voluntary and knowingly did. However, i disagree. I think that if one is praised for their mistakes, apparently it was a good mistake and it makes them want to repeat it in the future.
The question is not what is virtue, or what it takes to be virtuous, but if you boil it down to its key components, its clear that the original question about virtue being voluntary or involuntary is omnipresent throughout the entire text. It is clear, to me, that one's virtues are instilled, and therefore they are involuntary, but because of free will, the actions that proceed are voluntary, because anyone can override their virtue to act on passion or on a whim. The question that follows is whether or not that passion shows us our true virtue, and not the virtues that society has instilled in us. I believe that societal influences are the biggest component in our virtues, and therefore to conform to society, one must make these virtues involuntary, and very rarely let our passions override them and act voluntarily in a way different from these virtues.
ReplyDelete