Accounts of Responsibility, Action, and Character Acquisition in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the philosopher presents a comprehensive framework regarding moral responsibility, character development, and the nature of human actions. He explores the nuances of voluntary and involuntary actions, offering a detailed account of how individuals acquire character traits through their actions. Notably, in section 1114b, Aristotle raises a significant objection that challenges his assertions about moral responsibility, suggesting that individuals may not be fully accountable for their actions if they perceive them as good. This essay will delve into Aristotle’s perspectives on responsibility, action, and character acquisition, address the objection he presents, and propose a counterargument to defend his original claims.

Understanding Responsibility and Action

According to Aristotle, individuals are always responsible for their voluntary actions because these actions stem from conscious choices. When people act voluntarily, they are aware of the consequences of their actions and choose to proceed regardless. In contrast, involuntary actions arise from external forces or ignorance. Aristotle categorizes actions into two distinct types: voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary actions are those undertaken with knowledge and intention, while non-voluntary actions occur without full awareness or control. To illustrate this distinction, Aristotle uses the example of a ship’s crew throwing cargo overboard to save themselves from sinking. The crew understands the implications of their actions and chooses to act, making their behavior voluntary.

Involuntary actions, on the other hand, can be further divided into non-voluntary and involuntary categories. Non-voluntary actions are those that are not entirely in alignment with a person's character but occur without malicious intent. For instance, if someone is accidentally pushed into another person, they did not intend to cause harm and had no control over the situation. In contrast, involuntary actions are incompatible with a person’s character. An example would be stepping on someone’s foot unintentionally, where the person feels guilt for the unintended pain caused. Aristotle emphasizes that individuals may still bear moral responsibility for involuntary actions if they are accountable for the circumstances leading to those actions.

Character Acquisition through Habit

Aristotle distinguishes between two types of virtues: virtues of thought and virtues of character. Virtues of thought require intellectual development and practice, while virtues of character are acquired through habitual actions. As Aristotle asserts in 1103b, “we become just by doing just actions.” This statement encapsulates his theory of character acquisition, where individuals develop desirable traits by consistently performing actions characteristic of those traits. The following table summarizes Aristotle’s view on the relationship between actions and character development:

Addressing Aristotle's Objection

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents a noteworthy objection in section 1114b, arguing that individuals act based on their perceptions of what is good or appealing, which they cannot control. If people commit unjust actions because they believe them to be good, it raises questions about moral accountability. Aristotle counters this objection in section 1115a, asserting that individuals possess the capacity to exercise their judgment and choose their actions, even if they are unsure whether their actions are just. This implies that individuals are still morally responsible for their choices.

Furthermore, Professor McCord introduces the concept of "culpable ignorance," where individuals are responsible for their lack of understanding regarding the consequences of their actions. Aristotle supports this notion, stating that individuals should be aware of what is just. Consequently, those who engage in unjust actions due to ignorance still bear moral responsibility, as they should have sought knowledge of justice.

Critique of Aristotle's Argument

While Aristotle’s argument provides a solid foundation for understanding moral responsibility, it exhibits inherent flaws. His assertion that a person can only be just if they habitually perform just actions creates a paradox. If one must already possess a just character to engage in just actions, it implies a closed loop that hinders individuals from becoming just. This contradicts Aristotle’s earlier assertion that habitual just actions lead to the development of a just character.

If I were to offer a rebuttal to Aristotle’s objection in 1114b, I would emphasize that individuals have the capacity to learn and redefine their understanding of goodness. By habitually engaging in actions aligned with justice, individuals can reshape their perceptions and ultimately align their character with virtuous traits. This process supports Aristotle’s character acquisition theory, as exposure to just actions enables individuals to internalize these values.

In conclusion, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics offers a profound exploration of moral responsibility, action, and character acquisition. While his framework provides valuable insights, it is essential to recognize the potential for individuals to evolve their understanding of justice and morality. By engaging in just actions and reflecting on their consequences, individuals can cultivate virtuous character traits, reinforcing the idea that moral growth is attainable for all.

References

• Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics.
• McCord, Professor. Lecture on Aristotle's Ethics.