Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle (little readers .TXT) ๐
Description
Aristotle examines how best to live by looking at the nature of those virtues that characterize the most thriving human beings, and then at how to acquire and develop such virtues. This book is considered the founding document of what is now known as the โvirtue ethicsโ tradition.
Along the way, Aristotle delves into pleasure, happiness, justice, friendship, and willpower. He intended the Nicomachean Ethics to be the foundation on which to build his Politics.
Nicomachean Ethics is based on Aristotleโs lectures at the Lyceum and was originally collected as a series of ten scrolls. In translation it was hugely influential in the development of Western philosophic tradition, quickly becoming one of the core works of medieval philosophy.
Read free book ยซNicomachean Ethics by Aristotle (little readers .TXT) ๐ยป - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
- Author: Aristotle
Read book online ยซNicomachean Ethics by Aristotle (little readers .TXT) ๐ยป. Author - Aristotle
Virtue, as we have seen, has to do with feelings and actions. Now, praise33 or blame is given only to what is voluntary; that which is involuntary receives pardon, and sometimes even pity.
It seems, therefore, that a clear distinction between the voluntary and the involuntary is necessary for those who are investigating the nature of virtue, and will also help legislators in assigning rewards and punishments.
That is generally held to be involuntary which is done under compulsion or through ignorance.
โDone under compulsionโ means that the cause is external, the agent or patient contributing nothing towards it; as, for instance, if he were carried somewhere by a whirlwind or by men whom he could not resist.
But there is some question about acts done in order to avoid a greater evil, or to obtain some noble end; e.g. if a tyrant were to order you to do something disgraceful, having your parents or children in his power, who were to live if you did it, but to die if you did notโ โit is a matter of dispute whether such acts are involuntary or voluntary.
Throwing a cargo overboard in a storm is a somewhat analogous case. No one voluntarily throws away his property if nothing is to come of it,34 but any sensible person would do so to save the life of himself and the crew.
Acts of this kind, then, are of a mixed nature, but they more nearly resemble voluntary acts. For they are desired or chosen at the time when they are done, and the end or motive of an act is that which is in view at the time. In applying the terms voluntary and involuntary, therefore, we must consider the state of the agentโs mind at the time. Now, he wills the act at the time; for the cause which sets the limbs going lies in the agent in such cases and where the cause lies in the agent, it rests with him to do or not to do.
Such acts, then, are voluntary, though in themselves [or apart from these qualifying circumstances] we may allow them to be involuntary; for no one would choose anything of this kind on its own account.
And, in fact, for actions of this sort men are sometimes praised,35 e.g. when they endure something disgraceful or painful in order to secure some great and noble result, but in the contrary case they are blamed; for no worthy person would endure the extremity of disgrace when there was no noble result in view, or but a trifling one.
But in some cases we do not praise, but pardon, i.e. when a man is induced to do a wrong act by pressure which is too strong for human nature and which no one could bear. Though there are some cases of this kind, I think, where the plea of compulsion is inadmissible,36 and where, rather than do the act, a man ought to suffer death in its most painful form; for instance, the circumstances which โcompelledโ Alcmaeon in Euripides37 to kill his mother seem absurd.
It is sometimes hard to decide whether we ought to do this deed to avoid this evil, or whether we ought to endure this evil rather than do this deed; but it is still harder to abide by our decisions: for generally the evil which we wish to avoid is something painful, the deed we are pressed to do is something disgraceful; and hence we are blamed or praised according as we do or do not suffer ourselves to be compelled.
What kinds of acts, then, are to be called compulsory?
I think our answer must be that, in the first place, when the cause lies outside and the agent has no part in it, the act is called, without qualification, โcompulsoryโ [and therefore involuntary]; but that, in the second place, when an act that would not be voluntarily done for its own sake is chosen now in preference to this given alternative, the cause lying in the agent, such an act must be called โinvoluntary in itself,โ or โin the abstract,โ but โnow, and in preference to this alternative, voluntary,โ But an act of the latter kind is rather of the nature of a voluntary act: for acts fall within the sphere of particulars; and here the particular thing that is done is voluntary.
It is scarcely possible, however, to lay down rules for determining which of two alternatives is to be preferred; for there are many differences in the particular cases.
It might, perhaps, be urged that acts whose motive is something pleasant or something noble are compulsory, for here we are constrained by something outside us.
But if this were so,38 all our acts would be compulsory; for these are the motives of every act of every man.39
Again, acting under compulsion and against oneโs will is painful, but action whose motive is something pleasant or noble involves pleasure.40 It is absurd, then, to blame things outside us instead of our own readiness to yield to their allurements, and, while we claim our noble acts as our own, to set down our disgraceful actions to โpleasant things outside us.โ
Compulsory, then, it appears, is that of which the cause is external, the person compelled contributing nothing thereto.
What is done through ignorance is always โnot-voluntary,โ but is โinvoluntaryโ41 when the agent is pained afterwards and sorry when he finds what he has done.42 For when a man, who has done something through ignorance, is not vexed at what he has done, you cannot indeed say that he did it voluntarily, as he did not know what he was doing, but neither can you say that he did it involuntarily or
Comments (0)