In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions. There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions. Are we responsible for some of our actions after all? If so, under what circumstances? Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused. In order to evaluate Aristotle’s ethical argument, it is first necessary to explain his definitions of character acquisition, volition, and responsibility. Aristotle defines character acquisition very succinctly: …show more content…
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b). This argument, though most people would intuitively disagree with it, is in reality quite compelling. Just as those who are colorblind can not paint, and the crippled can not run, those with a naturally flawed or warped view of what is good can not be virtuous. Similarly, the virtuous can not take credit for their virtue because they are simply gifted with a clearer view of what is good, which is completely out of their control. Eventually, Aristotle does not completely refute this claim, but rests upon his earlier argument that one’s actions control her character: “if each man is somehow responsible for his state of mind, he will also be himself somehow responsible for the appearance” (1114b). If you are willing to believe that a person can change her state of character by habitual repeated actions, then Aristotle’s claim about …show more content…
Those who commit wicked acts because they can not see what is truly good have a skewed point of view for a reason. Their character is tainted by vice because they have habitually committed vicious acts in the past. Since they originally had a conscience, they must have willingly committed wrongdoing to warp their perception of what is good. Therefore, those who pursue an apparent good but commit wrong acts, due to a skewed appearance of what is good, are still responsible for their
In life, the evil does not always reveal itself in a grand way. Some evil stays in the thoughts and words of humans, and some evil is not discovered. A person behaves according to their own morals, which is decided by the world’s traditions and ethics.
For an extreme example, a terrorist thinks he is doing the right thing by setting off a bomb. Many situations in life can put into action inherent good, and many people will channel this good. Inherent good can be difficult to explain, but many examples can explain it in great detail. Nobody is born with the intention of being a bad person. Sometimes people believe that the evil people in the world have always been bad, but that is incorrect.
In the paper “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”, Susan Wolf discusses her ideas on what is necessary for an individual to be responsible for their actions. She argues that in order for the person to be held morally responsible for their actions, they need to be morally sane. To consider one to be morally sane, this individual must have an ideology that is able for them to distinguish right from wrong. Hence, a morally sane person must be able to reason and have a sound mind. Furthermore, Wolf establishes the sane deep-self view by applying other philosopher’s ideas.
(Young Goodman Brown 1). Everyone held up on a faith’s and innocence’s pedestal have also fallen into the trap of temptation. Everyone falls into the sin and temptation placed before them. There is not a single truly perfect person in the world, but people do not always initially realize this. Humanity will consciously resist all evil coming their way, while the subconscious craves it.
Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. First, I begin with Swinburne’s views on the kinds of evils. According to him, there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
“It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do.” ~ Moliere. The quote above will be used to help blame those for the death and shows how being irresponsible can have fatal consequences. William Shakespeare also known as the writer of the tragedy Romeo and Juliet, a beloved tail were to lovers cross-paths and anticipate that faith has brought them together has a not so satisfying ending.
(48). She goes on to explain that other virtues can supersede benevolence, which provides proof that benevolence is not the ultimate end. “We find in our ordinary moral code many requirements and prohibitions inconsistent with the idea that benevolence is the whole of morality.” (48). If benevolence is not the overall end of morality, but instead the end of one virtue within morality, then it cannot be the basis for morality as a
Lucy Bichakhchyan Introduction to Philosophy Second Short Written Assignment GALEN STRAWSON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Galen Strawson is a British philosopher, who is famous for his philosophical works on free will, panpsychism, causality, determinism etc. This paper is about his article “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility”. The title of the article already gives away the stand that Strawson has considering Moral Responsibility..
Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.
Therefore, if one wishes to be healthy, he can choose to eat healthy and practice sports, but his choice of being healthy just by its own will not predict the outcome of actually being healthy. Conclusively, “choice relates to the means and wish relates rather to the end”. Additionally, Aristotle also expatiates on anger and appetite. These characteristics, for Aristotle are related to pleasure and feelings which are themselves relate to all animals. However, choice is not for that choice is only related to rational beings.
Debate surrounding the question of citizenship, and the ensuing ideals about what makes a good life, has existed for as long as citizenship itself – providing many contrasting views and interpretations about the peak of human flourishing. Aristotle himself recognizes this fact, stating that “…there is often dispute about the citizen…since not everyone agrees that the same person is a citizen” (Politics 65). This is indicative, then, of the fact that there will be many different interpretations of human existence and its purpose; due to the fact that there is not even agreement on citizenry and what the ideas of it reflect for human life. The juxtaposition of two such views, those of Aristotle and Locke, allow thinkers to evaluate not only two