In Book III of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, his ultimate goal is to decide whether or not virtue and vice are always in our power or are always voluntary. In order to come to an answer, Aristotle examines the process in which we acquire these virtues. He discusses our decisions, what humans deliberate, and what is wished for and why things are wished for.
Aristotle points out that we deliberate about what we do not know. We deliberate about what the best way of promoting the end will be; however not what the best end is. Personally, I believe that deliberating about things that we cannot know for sure ultimately becomes us establishing our opinion on some topic. For example, Aristotle says that humans normally deliberate beliefs. There can never be a wrong or right belief of something because it all depends on your opinion of something you do not know. Therefore, because it is merely an opinion of what we do not know, it does not reflect our virtues.
When we wish, we are wishing for what is good to ourselves individually, wishing for the “apparent good.” I agree with this statement because it takes into consideration that people interpret what is said to be good differently from one-another.
I think that it should be pointed out that our decisions are what ultimately defines us as just or unjust, or having good or bad virtues. This is because our decisions truly reflect who we are. The actions that we deliberate before making our decision are irrelevant. I don’t believe that it matters if we deliberated what would be moral or immoral. I also don’t believe that what we wish for is related to what kind of virtues we acquire. When we make the decision to be either moral or immoral truly defines whether or not we will have good virtues.
2 comments:
"I think that it should be pointed out that our decisions are what ultimately defines us as just or unjust, or having good or bad virtues." This is an interesting observation because the judgement of a person or action being just or unjust varies from person to person. There is no universal definition for what is ethical for each and every situation. Ultimately, the decisions we make will define our view of what we believe to be just. Our actions will be left to the judgment of society to determine who we really are, regardless of how we see ourselves.
In response to the above comment, I am not sure that Aristotle would agree with the statement that there are no universal definitions for virtuous actions. It seems to me that Aristotle believes (A) Virtuous actions are defined by following the mean; (B) Virtuous states are defined by those who deliberately, habitually, and for the correct/rational reasons perform these virtuous actions;(C) Humans have a voluntary ability act in accordance, or not, with the above; THEREFORE (D) Aristotle states "...[The virtues] are voluntary. For in fact we are ourselves in a way jointly responsible for our states of character, and the sort of character we have determines the sort of end we lay down. Hence the vices will also be voluntary..." (Nicomachean 39).
However, I disagree with premise C that states that all beings have the capacity to choose their actions. I would argue that the ignorant do NOT have this capacity. Aristotle also mentions this, but seems to do so as a caveat: "If all this is true [the ignorance argument], then, surely virtue will be no more voluntary than vice" (39).
Any thoughts?
(I apologize that I have not sufficiently elaborated on my ignorance argument, but I am about to be late to our class...the off-line one)
Post a Comment