moral responsibility - 01/04/24

How does Aristotle appoint moral responsibility? What are the different types of actions?

Whether an act is involuntary, non-voluntary, or voluntary determines how we can appoint them moral responsibility for their actions. We praise and blame what is voluntary, but not what is involuntary, so this distinction is important to decide whether someone's actions are morally relevant. The distinction between involuntary and voluntary actions relates to the moment of action in the particular consequence, not whether the action is generally desirable, e.g. a sailor throwing goods overboard to save their boat during a storm can be voluntary or involuntary depending on circumstances.

Voluntary action: An action that the agent brought about in full knowledge of what they were doing.

Involuntary action: An action that someone has been forced to do or has done accidentally, and is regretted by the agent.

Non-voluntary action: An action that someone has been forced to do or has done accidentally, and is not regretted by the agent.

What is a voluntary action?

Voluntary action: An action that the agent brought about in full knowledge of what they were doing. An action is always voluntary unless it is affected by force or ignorance. Actions done from desire or emotion are still voluntary because our desire and emotions are no less part of us than our reason, so it is still our responsibility if we act on them. Furthermore, you cannot be praised for an involuntary action, though some actions motivated by emotion are praiseworthy.

What is an involuntary action?

'Actions are regarded as involuntary when they are performed under compulsion or through ignorance'

A person is not morally responsible for their involuntary actions - for an action to be involuntary, the agent must regret the action.

Compulsion is when we are forced to things by physical or psychological pressure. When this is a pressure that no one could withstand, we don't blame the agent for their action. If it is a psychological pressure, then it must be a negative pressure, because giving in to temptation is not involuntary.

An action through ignorance is acting morally wrong accidentally; you know what you're aiming at, and you know the relevant general truths, but you don't know the particular circumstances of the action or what its consequences will be. You attempt to act morally but ignorantly act immorally (or vice-versa). For examples, in the tragedy of Oedipus. Oedipus was abandoned as a baby, and intended to 'kill a rich man and marry the Queen of Thebes', but they ended up being his parents, so he unknowingly killed his father and married his father. He did not know the particular circumstances of his action (that they were his parents) so his actions were out of ignorance.

What is the difference between acting in ignorance and out of ignorance?

The distinction is based on whether the ignorance played an important causal or explanatory role in the agent performing the action - whether or not the person would have done the action under normal circumstances.

The tragedy of Oedipus was an action out of ignorance, because he would have never killed his father and married his mother if he had known they were his parents. But, when you are drunk, you may do something without fully understanding it, but your action is a result of your drunkness, not your ignorance. This is not involuntary as you are still (somewhat) in control of your actions, and it is not based on an unavoidable epistemic barrier.

You are morally responsible for actions in ignorance, but not those out of ignorance.

What is a non-voluntary action?

'Every act done through ignorance is non-voluntary, but is involuntary only when it causes the agent subsequent pain and repentance'

Like and involuntary action, a non-voluntary action is one we have performed out of ignorance. But, the distinction between the two is whether or not the actions causes us guilt. If the person does regret the action, it is involuntary, and if they don't it's non-voluntary.

What is a mixed action?

Aristotle acknowledges that some actions done in knowledge of all the relevant circumstances and unforced are not fully liable to praise or blame. These are mixed actions. They are like voluntary actions because they aren't performed by or due to ignorance, but they are also somewhat involuntary, since the agent would never have chosen them for their own sake. The moral responsibility of mixed actions is determined case by case rather than generally. They may be liable tor praise or blame, or they may be liable to pardon. An example of this lying to protect someone from an axe murderer. This lie is not enforced by compulsion or force and is praiseworthy, but the person would not have lied normally.

Define choice according to Aristotle. Why is choice and deliberation important when considering moral responsibility?

Choice is what we decide upon as a result of deliberation. We only deliberate about things we can change, and more particularly, things we may need to act differently on different occasions. Deliberation is a kind of reasoned thought about what we can change by our efforts, and where we need to act differently on different occasions. So, choice is a deliberate desire regarding something that is in one's power. An example of an action that is voluntary but not chosen is brushing your teeth. Once having decided to do it, you don't actively deliberate - there is no more deliberation and you are not choosing to do each step.