▶ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

latest entry index of pages classics howto guide topic outline FAQ chronoscope

good links email (PGP) Twitter (@99Tactics)

Custom Search

Aristotle on Voluntary, Chosen, Deliberate Acts

In the fifth section of the third book of The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle,
having pinpointed the subset of acts that are voluntary, chosen, and deliber-
ate, now says that it is these acts in which virtue is demonstrated.

Virtue is found in the exercise of means (wishing for the correct ends is
presumably more a matter of wisdom than virtue). The exercise of means
(or the decision not to) is a matter of deliberation and choice, and so is in
our power, and therefore so is our virtue.

You are responsible for being reasonably informed about what you need to know to make the
right decisions in the circumstances you encounter, and if you ignore this responsibility (or if you
actively contribute to your own ignorance, for instance by being drunk or by looking away from
some inconvenient truth), you cannot use your ignorance as an excuse for vicious actions.

Since virtue is a habit (as is vice), it may be a choice to initially acquire a vice or to neglect a
virtue, but once you have done this habitually, it becomes less voluntary over time. This is interest-
ing for a couple of reasons: first, if virtues and vices become less voluntary as they become more ha-
bitual, it would seem that they become less praiseworthy or blameworthy also; second, it seems to
create another obstacle in the path to becoming a virtuous person if you aren’t one already — how do
you go about changing bad habits if they aren’t even very voluntary any longer? (Aristotle does not
yet address either of these points, but I hope he does eventually.)

In some recorded lectures about the Nicomachean Ethics that I was listening to during a recent
leisurely train ride down California, Joseph Koturksi emphasized that Aristotle defined moral virtue
in particular as a habit of choosing the golden mean — that is to say that it differs from other vari-
eties of habit in not constricting choice but in exhibiting itself as choosing.

It seems from this that the lack of moral virtue can take two forms, or a combination of the two:
not choosing, or choosing poorly. (I suppose a third variety would be a failure to make correct
choosing habitual, but my reading of Aristotle suggests that this habituation is an automatic
process, and so its absence would be more suggestive of, say, brain damage, than of anything cor-
rectable by philosophy.)

Anyway: “habit” in the case of moral virtue isn’t meant as a sort of unthinking, repetitive, by-rote
sort of behavior. Point made.

Next, Aristotle addresses the argument that while everybody aims for the apparent good, what
appears to be good to each of us is not under our control but is just a given part of our temperament
or constitution or some such. Aristotle says that if this is true, then you aren’t really to be blamed for
deeds you perform under the misapprehension that you’re doing the right thing. However, he says
that to some extent, you are responsible for your own temperament and constitution, and to that ex-
tent you can inherit responsibility for the misdeeds you perform under its influence.

But in any case, if our virtues are voluntary and we can be praised for them, our vices are too, and
we can be blamed for them.

From here, for most of the rest of the Nicomachean Ethics, we’re going to go into an in-depth
look at particular virtues. The rest of this book will look at courage and temperance. Book four will
concern liberality, magnificence, pride, industriousness, good temper, friendliness, truthfulness,
bonhomie, and the quasi-virtue of shame. Book five is all about justice. Book six concerns the intel-
lectual virtues. Book seven concerns continence and also contains a discussion of pleasure that will
be continued in book ten.

Several days ago my sweetie and I were relaxing at home with a DVD from the library: the movie
Secretary. It’s a silly story about a mousy young woman (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who also, co-
incidentally, played the vivacious tax resister in Stranger than Fiction) who becomes the secretary of
an eccentric lawyer and who finds her job transforming into an erotic dominance/submission scene
in which she learns to play the submissive and ends up personally flowering and maturing in the
course of doing so.

It’s not a very deep film, but some of her character’s comments about the pleasures of submis-
sion — unthinking obedience to the commands of a trusted dominant — and the sort of confidence
and, oddly, “freedom” that results from this, lodged in my head and got me thinking about this and
that.

Much of this “freedom” is freedom from having to make up your own mind and make your own
decisions and assert your own risky initiative. What am I going to do? Whatever the dominant wants
me to do or tells me to do. If that’s always the right answer, it makes deciding a snap and much less of
a burden, and permits you (or seems to permit you) to shift most of the burden of the responsibility
for the consequences onto the dominant “decider.”

In a bedroom scene, that’s all fun and games, but when such things come out of the bedroom and
into society at large, this sort of evasion of responsibility can be very dangerous. Hannah Arendt
spent some time analyzing Adolf Eichmann as someone who had decided to renounce his will and
devote himself to carrying out his Fuhrer’s will; once he was caught and put on trial for this, he pa-
thetically tried to excuse his behavior by saying that having made himself an agent of the Fuhrer’s
whims, he was no longer able to behave according to his remaining ethical instincts.

A couple of years back I quoted Arne Johan Vetlesen’s summary of Arendt’s argument: “superflu-
ousness represents a temptation: it holds the promise of an existence devoid of (enacted) human
agency, hence free of the burdens of responsibility and guilt, as well as hurt and loss.” Vetlesen says
that indulging this temptation not only dangerously enables you to commit evil, but is a sort of evil
itself:

Morally speaking, permitting oneself to be dehumanized, to be robbed of one’s autonomy (Kant), is

in itself no lesser sin than participating in the dehumanization of others; it entails permitting one-
self to become an instrument in the realization of ends posited by others.

The military chain of command is another dangerous variety of D&S game in which essentially
unquestioning obedience is expected. I suspect that a craving for submission and for freedom from
the burden of decision-making and its consequences is a strong motivation for many people who
join the military. This burden can feel especially heavy to young people just emerging from home
and from institutional education into the freedom of adulthood and all of the responsibility it
entails.

But I also thought about Aristotle’s assertion that a virtuous person takes pleasure in behaving
virtuously that outweighs any incidental discomfort of any particular virtuous act. If you have an im-
age of virtue in your mind and you conform your actions to that image and then take pleasure in hav-
ing done so, to what extent is this like a sort of private D&S game in which your image of virtue is the
dominant and you are the submissive?

In a Christian context, this is explicit: the Christian accepts Christ as his or her Lord and Master,
and says Thy Will Be Done, I will deny myself and take up my cross daily, and so forth. Kant, for his
part, thought that an act was really virtuous only if it was unpleasant, painful, or difficult — whip
me! beat me! make me virtuous!

How do you identify and correct for a decadent parody of virtue that really amounts to a respon-
sibility-denying D&S scene? That is, how do you know whether you’re being virtuous or whether
you’re submitting to a freedom-restricting straitjacket in the name of virtue? How do you avoid get-
ting in a situation where you do the wrong thing, but “can’t help it” because you’ve obligated yourself
to submit to Christ’s teachings, or to think of the greatest good for the greatest number, or to main-
tain Army discipline, or to obey the categorical imperative, or whatever your dom happens to be?

And how would you defend against the argument that Aristotle’s model of virtue is essentially a
D&S scene in which a mental model of virtue is the dom?

One possible line of defense would be to note that, in Aristotle’s scheme (unlike Kant’s, for in-
stance), virtuous acts are not necessarily painful or difficult or against your inclinations — indeed,
often quite the opposite: virtue is a variety of excellence and an important path toward eudaimonia 
— flourishing, thriving, happiness. So at least this isn’t an S&M thing, where you martyr yourself and
then take pleasure in your suffering. Also, as Joseph Koturski pointed out, moral virtue is the habit
of choosing well, so it doesn’t unburden you of the need to choose at all. To the extent that a D&S
scene is partially about freedom-from-choice, an internal, non-dogmatic dom doesn’t do the trick
(whereas a Categorical Imperative or a scriptural Jesus might do).

Index to the Nicomachean Ethics series

A few months after writing this entry, I picked up A Testament to Freedom, a collection of the
writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In one of his early works on Christian Ethics, he wrote:

For Christians there are no ethical principles by means of which they could perhaps civilize
themselves. Nor can yesterday ever be decisive for my moral action today. Rather must a di-
rect relationship to God’s will be ever sought afresh. I do not do something again today be-
cause it seemed to me to be good yesterday, but because the will of God points out this way
to me today. This is the great moral renewal through Jesus, the renunciation of principles, of
rulings, in the words of the Bible, of the law, and this follows as a consequence of the Christ-
ian idea of God; for if there was a generally valid moral law, then there would be a way from
the human to God — I would have my principles, so I would believe myself assured sub specie
aeternitatis. So, to some extent, I would have control over my relationship to God, so there
would be a moral action without immediate relationship to God. And, most important of all, in
that case I would once again become a slave to my principles. I would sacrifice our most pre-
cious gift, freedom.

« browse »
0 Comments The Picket Line !
1 Login

' Recommend t Tweet f Share Sort by Best

Start the discussion…

LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

Be the first to comment.

ALSO ON THE PICKET LINE

The Picket Line — 4 July 2013 17 December 2014

1 comment • 6 years ago 2 comments • 5 years ago
Martin Kelley — Hi David: wow, this is very Kee-Fung Anthony Ho — I think you should not use
cool. You and some of your readers will know me Mandarin romanization for a protestors who largely
as a 20-year WTR. I used to regularly attend speak Cantonese. Romanization of the Chinese
NWTRCC meetings, was on the national should be in Cantonese, not Mandarin. We
17 December 2017
committee of WRL, and worked at the publishing 10 December
Hongkongers 2016do not speak Mandarin, we speak
3 comments • 2 years ago
house that co-published and distributed WRL's 2 comments • 3 years ago
Cantonese and we romanize in Cantonese.
guide. —
Guest That "lettraveling
I stopped somebody when else"
I gotworry about
married and = Gung—Uk
Larry Bassett I wish people
Yinchi Gaaulike
JouGloria Steinem
OR Gung1 Uk1
started a seems
payment family, and
rather I gave
irresponsible.
up WTR aI few suppose
yearsI Yin4 Chi4
would come Gaau1
out to
Jou1
the public through = some
Faanchaak
of the
ago (a interesting
should not be surprised.
processThey I should
seemshare
to grow more Jipiu Gaau Seui
rank-and-file peace
OR organizations. But I guess
sometime),
nihilistic by but
the day.
I'm still
I had very
hoped
muchthata friend
thereof
would Faan1 Chaak3
people like her Ji1
don't
Piu3
need
Gaau1
to get
Seui3
on their smart
✉ Subscribe
movement.
be more of aAnd: dplan
Addsince
inDisqus
it than
2011,
toyou
I'vemention.
your & Disqus' Privacy Policy
been Friends
site = Leungsam
phones and peace
Kongseui
Internet
Wandung
sites. OR Leung4 Sam1
Journal's Editor. I'm not seeing lots of submissions Kong3 Seui3 Wan6 Dung6

Find Out More!

For more information on the topic or topics below (organized as “topic subtopic sub-subtopic”), click on any of the
symbols to see other pages on this site that cover the topic. Or browse the site’s topic index at the “Outline” page.

§ Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government not being a “Good German” Hannah Arendt

§ Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government not being a “Good German” Adolf Eichmann

§ Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government ethics are ethics just aesthetics, instincts, lifecycle trends, or
fashion statements?

§ Why it is your duty to stop supporting the government ethics Arne Johan Vetlesen’s Evil and Human Agency

§ Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book Ⅲ (virtue, and some moral virtues)

BOOKS