Moral Responsibility In Book III Of Nichomachean Ethics By Aristotle

In Book III of Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the acquisition of character, responsibility for the end that occurs, and potential objections to his theory of moral responsibility. Though he doesn’t explicitly state his rebuttals, he does introduce a key idea that further supports his initial argument and revises the definition of people’s nature to do actions. One of Aristotle’s main objectives is to discuss the theory of moral responsibility, asking what actions a person should be considered responsible for if any. He begins by differentiating between types of actions, dividing them into two main categories—voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary actions, he argues, are those that people perform when they know what they are doing and intend a certain end. These are actions that people can reasonably judge and deem praiseworthy or blameworthy. For example, if a person

If you tell someone to force you to do an action non-voluntarily, a voluntary action cause a non-voluntary action and even though the non-voluntary action directly caused the end, the responsibility lies in the voluntary action that intended that end and knew it would happen. Thus, there is a fine line between voluntary and non-voluntary actions but they can intertwine and it is up to the judge to determine where knowledge and intention was present. The other way that character is established, as Aristotle addresses in an objection, is by nature. Given that everybody wants a good end, what if your inborn nature (which leads to character) solely determines how the end appears and thus, what character you choose to establish in yourself. Then, whatever end you produce can only be praised or blamed on nature and you yourself can’t be responsible for your actions because you didn’t determine your