Distinction Between Voluntary And Involuntary Actions example essay topic

Aristotle's Views On Human Action Essay, ResearchAristotle's Views On Human Action In his book, the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle raises questions about human happiness and what it takes to make a good human life. In his quest for an answer, Aristotle covers a great deal of ground and touches upon a variety of topics that, while not obviously so, tie significantly into to the "happiness' of our daily lives. One of these topics is the distinction between our voluntary actions and our involuntary actions. Book, chapters 1 and 5 deal specifically with this distinction in a way that is both expository and interesting, using examples to draw the reader into a better understanding of the text. In this paper, I hope to suitably explain the distinction that Aristotle draws between the voluntary and the involuntary.

Moreover, I will also explain the subsequent distinctions that arise under the category of involuntary actions. In chapter 1, Aristotle focuses on breaking down the substructures of our involuntary actions, while chapter 5 speaks more on the issue of our voluntary actions. In both chapters, Aristotle makes good use of simple but direct examples to illustrate his point of view. The examples are important in the text as Aristotle is dealing with abstract concepts; tying them into a real-world context of punishment and reward. Also, they provide a leg to stand on when the text becomes too wordy and confusing (not all that rare in Aristotle). In chapter 1, Aristotle focuses primarily on the involuntary actions of man; giving lengthy consideration to the more specific distinctions that arise.

"Those things, then, are thought involuntary, which take place under compulsion or owing to ignorance' (Bk. I, ch. 1, 1109 b 35). This is the first distinction that is made under the heading of "involuntary' actions. If an action is to be considered involuntary, you must either perform the action under compulsion or out of ignorance.

Aristotle states that in both cases, the "moving principle' (motivational force) is outside of the agent, with nothing being contributed by the agent, as "if her were to be carried somewhere by a wind, or by men who had him in their power' (Bk. I, ch. 1, 1110 a 3). Though compulsion and ignorance both result in involuntary action, I find the concept of compulsion a bit harder to understand and explain.

I feel that this may be due to the fact that Aristotle himself found the concept difficult to put across. There seem to be, in Aristotle's view, differences in what compulsion can be. There is the compulsion that Aristotle described as a strong agent in nature (wind) or that of being physically without the power to resist (as with a mob or group of strong men). Those types of compulsion are rare, but they are apparently the only ones that result in truly involuntary actions. The other types of compulsion described by Aristotle are the types that we most commonly think of; situations where, technically, we have a choice, though we see it as really no choice at all. Examples include a tyrant who orders you to do something heinous to save your family from certain death, and jettisoning supplies in order to save your ship from sinking in a storm.

Aristotle admits that these are actions that we would never willingly choose for ourselves if circumstances did not demand that we do, but he states that, when dealing with the distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions, we have to refer to the moment of action; was there a choice to be made. This becomes a bit more clear when we turn it into an equation: [involuntary action (throwing the ship's rations overboard) + compulsion (terrible storm and a sinking ship) + motivation (staying alive) + choice (will I or wont I?) = voluntary action]. Choice implies that the principle of motion is in the agent, so the action is voluntary; Aristotle does acknowledge, though, that, in the abstract, these actions can be seen as involuntary. Praise or blame may be bestowed on the agent, depending on what was done and for what reason, but more often than not the agent receives forgiveness. Just as it is a stretch, in Aristotle's view, to call the wish to stave off evil or pain a compulsion, it is "absurd' to propose that so could it be a desire for the "pleasant and noble', things done for those reasons are completely voluntary.

Human ignorance is a problem that Aristotle runs up against again and again, just as he does here with the question of involuntary actions. After the intricacies of compulsion, ignorance as contributing factor to involuntary actions can seem daunting, but it is actually fairly easy to understand. First, Aristotle states that, "Everything that is done by reason of ignorance is non-voluntary' (Bk. I, ch. 1, 1110 b 17). Then, he makes the distinction between non-voluntary and involuntary by adding that "it is only what produces pain and regret that is involuntary' (Bk.

I, ch. 1, 1110 b 17). So, now we have the distinction between involuntary and non-voluntary to contend with. Involuntary actions are actions that were done non-voluntarily and then have the pain and regret of realizing what you have done added to them. For example, when you accidentally disclose a secret the act of speaking is voluntary and the disclosure is non-voluntary, but quickly becomes involuntary as you gauge the other person's reaction and realize what you have done. Also included in the definition of an involuntary action is ignorance on the part of the agent as to what is to his advantage; the aspects of pity and forgiveness depend on this point.

Non-voluntary action is relatively easy to explain since all actions from ignorance are non-voluntary to begin with. The action stays non-voluntary as long as the agent never realizes that he has acted out of ignorance. I am assuming this to be true, as Aristotle never gives a timeframe for the jump from non-voluntary to involuntary. Voluntary actions are the more common ones in our everyday lives.

We all have an idea of what it means to be a voluntary action; we perform them all the time. On some level, they all involve a choice made and a decision reached, so most of them carry a degree of praise or blame. Aristotle points out that voluntary actions are those in which the moving principle is in the agent with said agent being aware of the circumstances. In his explanation of the involuntary, Aristotle has already touched upon the voluntary several times, but his explanation becomes more focused in chapter 5. Aristotle starts out chapter 5 by pointing out that, contrary to an old saying, "wickedness is voluntary' (Bk. I, ch.

5, 1113 b 17) and that man is a "begetter of his actins as of his children' (Bk. I, ch. 5, 1113 b 19). To illustrate this fact, Aristotle points out that the state will punish the wicked for their acts; in fact, we even punish those that act in ignorance. There is a distinction, drawn by Aristotle, between acting out of ignorance and acting in ignorance. The best example that Aristotle gives for a man acting in ignorance is that of a drunken man.

The drunken man cannot be said to be acting voluntarily when he is drunk, but he had the choice of getting drunk or staying sober presented to him and he chose to get drunk. There was a choice involved and so the actions committed while dunk are in ignorance, but at the same time voluntary. Due to their voluntary nature, the actions committed in ignorance are subject to punishment. As Aristotle put it, "the moving principle is in the man himself, since he had the power of not getting drunk and his getting drunk was the cause of his ignorance' (Bk.

1, ch. 5, 1113 b 32). Aristotle also pints out that those who are ignorant of anything in the laws that they should know are also punished, not because of their ignorance, but as a result of it (a good example of this is when you try to get out of being fined by claiming that you did not know it was a handicapped spot you parked in). As one would suppose, voluntary actions bring with them responsibility and this is what a lot of chapter 5 deals with.

Aristotle claims that we are as responsible for the states our characters are in as we are for our actions, as both of them are voluntary (though not in the same way). We are responsible for our actions from the beginning to the very end, but this is not so of our states. The state of our character is determined, over time, by our voluntary actions. So, if I am unjust, it is my own fault because I have voluntarily done unjust things and my character has become that of an unjust person. Moreover, Aristotle claims that once I am possessed of an unjust character I cannot remedy it, as it is no longer in my power to do so. Aristotle goes on to claim that just as the vices of the soul are voluntary, so are the vices of the body.

He exemplifies this claim by pointing out that we don't blame people who were born ugly, just those that are so because of some "want of exercise and care'. So, again we see that, for Aristotle, a good indicator of the voluntary and the involuntary is the placing of praise or blame (though I personally take issue with the exercise bit). Overall, I feel that Aristotle's account is a successful one. The topic of human action is a tricky one, but I believe that he handled well and kept it well contained within the context of what he was discussing (it wasn't all over the place). I think that the intelligibility of the text selected was due, in part, to the fact that Aristotle drew on a lot of thins that were just common sense. Are drunk people responsible for what they do?

Yep. Do we sometimes do and say things that we didn't mean? You bet. Are we responsible for the kind of person that we are?

In part, of course. These are things that we can find very little fault with because they are part of our belief system; ingrained in us from the time we are children and are taught right and wrong as well as the consequences of our actions. Naturally, there are questions that Aristotle has left unanswered; they seem important now because of the focus of this paper, but in the larger context of the Nicomachean Ethics and what Aristotle wants to accomplish with this book, he pretty much has all of his bases covered..