Aristotle's Responsibility - Essay Example

Aristotle’s Responsibility The philosophy of Aristotle’s responsibility has been discussed since time in memorial. Basically, Aristotle’s view on responsibility and his main objection was made in 1114 B. His view on responsibility gives a negative definition of what is thought to be responsibility. He argues that people are responsible for the actions they involve themselves in, both voluntary and involuntary. (Höffe 97) Voluntary actions are those that are done out of free will while, involuntary actions are actions done out of ignorance or compulsion. To understand responsibility as human beings for there must be a clear understanding of what voluntary and involuntary actions are. For instance, if a person put his hand up and another one comes along and pulls it down that act could be described as an involuntary action. Conversely, if a person gave another food or drink that resulted to killing him unknowingly then, that could be said to be an involuntary action. Thus, an involuntary action does not shape the quality of a person as it is not an action that is done out of will (Höffe 97). Voluntary actions practiced by human beings shape their character, and how they deal with others, thus making some of them appear just, and others unjust depending on the situation that they are associated with. Apparently, actions shape peoples’ character, and define them as who they are with regard to what they do. For instance, a harpist is a character that is associated with playing the harp, not by just theoretically being a harpist. The constant practicing and perfecting of playing the harp is what causes someone to be a harpist. None of the human being’s virtues of character come naturally. If anything, human beings are born with the ability to acquire them, and then use them through habits (Höffe 107). Never the less, habits allow us to perform virtues, but habituation cannot bring something by nature from one condition into another. According to Aristotle, objection made at 1114B denotes that no one is answerable for their deeds because they feel their actions are the best for them. Any person who has the normal character to perform what is best for him or her automatically becomes a good person. Coincidentally, how a conclusion appears to someone is natural. This means that the purpose for everything someone does primarily appears as a good idea to them. People do not understand the impact of their actions, but are more interested in attaining their means (Höffe 103). For instance, a person cannot be agitated at another for doing things they thought would be best for them, but in their ignorance participated in actions that were not good for anyone. Additionally, people do what they are comfortable with to reach their goals or to fulfill their purpose as long as they can accomplish. Supposing nature did not give people the idea of right and wrong, but some of the moral obligation to what is right and what is wrong belonged to people. The philosophy of Aristotle argues that the bad person could see right from wrong differently as compared to how a good person could see right from wrong. Besides, it says that human beings are responsible for the kind of people they are, and the kind of nature they have. Certain actions produce certain kinds of virtues and vise visa. Events and status are involuntary in the matching way that virtues are. People are in control of what they do all the way throughout the known particulars. Conversely, with states it is different because people are in control in the beginning, but do not really have a an idea of how particular actions will end up playing out. Either way, it is upon human beings to show their capability in one way or the other. If stipulation on the objections of responsibility at 1114 B were true, then that would mean no one is responsible for their actions and since peoples’ actions control the type of nature they have, then that means peoples’ responsibilities do not ascertain what kind of people they are or ought to be (Höffe 98). Simply, bravery is not a trait that someone is born with, but a virtue that is acquired slowly. Everyone has the ability to be brave if they choose to be. Before a person can be described as brave or have a brave nature, he or she must perform actions that highly insinuate that the individual is brave at all cost. The nature of bravery does not stem from someone being brave, but because of their actions of bravery that makes a reflect of the trait (Höffe 96). For instance, what separates a coward from a brave man is not the fact that he is brave, but his actions must be described as brave. A brave person voluntarily does brave actions. He or she may rescue people from fires and rescues hostages because it is in his nature. He or she is responsible for doing actions that reflect his nature because he has the capacity to do it. These actions must be done voluntarily for the person to be considered brave. Even if a brave person does an action that is brave if the action was done involuntarily then that does not reflect the brave nature of a person. For instance, if a firefighter rescued a baby from a burning house only because he was hungry and thought the baby was a watermelon, then that does not count as a brave action because the action was done in ignorance. Needless to mention is that, people cannot be classified as brave if their actions were not done with the goal of brevity in mind. Moreover, in case a policemen is in a hostage situation, and a criminal walks in the hostage store where the gun are stored and happen to instruct all the policemen to sit down. Then a colleague in the midst influences the other to pull the trigger killing the criminal in the process. Essentially, the act cannot be considered as absolute brevity because of the fact that the said policeman was compelled to pull the trigger. Hence, this can only be described as an involuntary action. Of importance to note is that, a person is not responsible for all actions he does, but he is responsible for actions he does voluntarily. He can only be judged for actions he does knowingly and aware of all the consequences that come with the actions. Thus, character development emanates from such a situation. When a person does an act of kindness we can infer that the person is kind. A kind person will do kind actions, and therefore, they are kind in nature (Höffe 94). Apparently, if the objections made at 1114B, would be argued as true, then it means that a mean person and a kind person both have the similar purposes, and they try to meet the same ends. A kind-natured person does not perform kind acts with the same purpose that a mean purpose performs mean ones. A kind person does not demonstrate a kind character since it is a expression of the personality that the person has. He or she has acquired a kind nature though numerous actions that he or she has engaged himself in. When someone has a good nature they do good actions because their actions are reflective of the personalities they carry. Both good and bad people engage in issues that are meant to reach their respective ends. All of their actions can be drawn back issues that they were pursuing originally. The theory that people are not responsible for what they do infers that they could also not be responsible for the type of people they are. Hence, the thinking suggests that people do not have free will. Actions are determined by what people choose to do, making it an incorrect assertion. If people do not take responsibility for their actions then it becomes difficult to assess who are the criminals in the society, and the people who fit best to run a country. Essentially, responsibility gives us an opportunity to get rid of the those who do not possess the necessarily to be leaders. Without responsibly, it is practically impossible to put emphasis on the value of the right and the wrong virtue. The knowledge of taking responsibility keeps human beings from committing crimes, and other actions that do not take responsibility in mind. People have to be responsible for the actions they voluntarily do because they choose to do those actions. They decided that the action they were about to do is the best reflection of the type of person that they are (Höffe 99). Everyone has the capacity to be whatever kind of person they would like to be. The choices and decisions they make along with the actions they perform are a direct link to the kind of persons they are. Both good and bad people have same capabilities to be whichever type of person they desire. The only difference is that the bad person decides to do actions that reflect a bad nature while the good person does not (Höffe 91). Works cited; Höffe, Otfried. Aristotle's "Nicomachean ethics". Leiden, the Netherlands; Boston: Brill.2010. Print. Read More