Nicomachean Ethics: Voluntary Vs. Involuntary

Many things account for what a person is recognized as or how they act. Although, many individuals may be understood due to how they look, or their status in society; one of the main things that play an important role to how an individual is recognized is by their actions. The actions of an individual will say a lot about their character. Or so we think. Typically, someone who volunteers is recognized as a good person who gives back to society. While on the other hand, someone who commits a fallacy, is recognized as a criminal. Aristotle looks deeper into this in the third book of the Nicomachean Ethics. He divides actions into two main categories, the voluntary and the involuntary. Through this, he explains the difference and demonstrates
When referring to Aristotle’s teachings in the third book of the Nicomachean Ethics, it is clear to see that involuntary action goes much deeper than this, and sometimes blamed on addictions in order to not be blamed for. Everyone has desires and appetites; this is clearly recognized as normal. The fact that a human being is rational though is what distinguishes us from animals. We have a choice to do something good instead of bad. As humans, we are temperate. If we are unable to be temperate we cannot be virtuous. This ties into the old saying that too much of a good thing is actually bad for you. This applies to anything. Too much food can cause imbalances, just like too much exercise can strain your muscles. One who has too many desires cannot be virtuous. This applies to specific occasions like those of rape. One may use the excuse that he or she is full of desire for the other person, and cannot control them. To him, his desires may feel like a virtue and he then commits the voluntary act of rape. Contrarily the victim of this assault is forced to commit an action involuntarily. This is a great way of distinguishing the actions that Aristotle tries to teach in the third book of the Nicomachean Ethics. Involuntary actions are essentially the opposite of voluntary actions. They consist of actions that are out of one’s control and/or against one’s will. For example, getting
This is because when one is threatened or blackmailed, the person has a choice; the choice to pick one option or the other. In this case, any choice made is voluntary, which results back to Aristotle’s point about there being praiseworthy and blameworthy actions. Although, the action itself is voluntary, it is followed through for the greater good. If someone commits a wrong action in order to protect his or her loved ones, I do not believe this makes the person a bad individual. Nor does it form bad habits in a person that will be hard to change. I believe if someone is truly good, they will aim towards doing the right thing, as opposed to someone who is virtually bad. In my opinion, this explains a big part of the issue of judgment. I do not believe that one has the ability to judge someone else on an action they chose to commit based on the safety of their children or loved ones, as the example illustrated by