Amidst all of these theories and
categories, who is
responsible for what actions? Aristotle proposes that
everyone
is
responsible for virtues and vices because they are inherently
voluntary. Virtues and vices are part of one’s character, which is defined
through chosen, voluntary actions. Self-inflicted ignorance that causes vice is
in itself a voluntary action. Stating practical examples, Aristotle proposes
that no one is responsible for actions that are completely non-voluntary while
they are responsible for actions that are voluntary. No one would condemn a
blind man for breaking a vase. He could not see the vase, he could not change
his ocular abilities, and he did not choose to break the vase. However, a child
playing baseball in the house would be responsible for breaking that same vase,
granted he was old enough to know better, due to the fact that he voluntarily
decided to play indoors, knowing that there could be a bad outcome.
In
the same way as the blind man bears no
responsibility for his ignorance of the
location of the base, the common view in society is that insane or mentally
disabled people cannot possibly be responsible for their actions because they
lack the ability to deliberate and suffer from a universal ignorance beyond
their control. “
a totally insensible person would not know that a given
type of activity is the source of the corresponding state; if someone
does what he knows will make him unjust, he is willingly unjust” (1114a, 10-13).
According to Aristotle, these are the only people who are not responsible for
any actions.
In
1114b, Aristotle offers the objection that everyone will act in a way that they
believe has the best outcome for them and proposes that they are exempt from
responsibility. If the outcome is not really the best, then they are only
acting under ignorance, thus not acting voluntarily. This would mean that they
are not responsible for any of their specific actions and cannot be responsible
agents. Then there would be no such thing as voluntary actions or
responsibility. The objectors agree with the driver from our previous example
and think that a person’s character originates through events and experiences
that are beyond a person’s control. This objection appears to make sense as an
argument but few people would feel comfortable saying that no one is
responsible for their actions. So where does the argument fail? Is it not true
that a person’s character and values will make them see their goals under
different lights? An alcoholic will see drunkenness as a way to make him or her
the happiest they can be. Therefore, since Aristotle claims that character is
created willingly through voluntary actions and this character determines how
one views their own actions, then the responsibility lies in character
acquisition. “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” (1114b, 22-24). Therefore, even if a person acts as justly as
they see possible, they are still responsible for the outcome, good or bad,
because they chose to be who they are.
I for one am not completely
convinced by Aristotle’s argument. To start with, he claims that if a person
thinks they are acting in a way that will have the best outcome for them in the
end then they are not responsible. An unjust person will voluntarily do what is
best for them but not necessarily best for everyone else. If a man steals, he
is doing what is best for him because he gains the wealth he desires. However,
anyone and everyone would condemn him for acting thusly. There is no need to
trace his actions back to his character for blinding him because he will know
the foreseeable outcome and act regardless. However, overall I feel that
Aristotle’s theory is too all encompassing. He negates the possibility thatthere are any non-voluntary factors in a person’s life that could affect
their character. I believe that there may be factors in a child’s life, such as
sexual/physical abuse or other trauma, which could affect judgment and not be
blamed on the child.