In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents a theory of moral responsibility involving actions and the acquisition of character. It examines when and how individuals are responsible and provides an objection to when people are never responsible for what they do. I first describe the concepts of moral responsibility, virtue, actions, and decision making, and then analyze Aristotle's objection and response. In this essay I will argue that this objection fails because it fails to take into account the distinction between good and bad actions and their implications for character. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Moral responsibility includes virtues and vices. According to Aristotle, virtue is related to both actions and how people feel about those actions. There are generally three types of action: non-voluntary, involuntary and voluntary. However, I will mainly focus on voluntary and involuntary to define actions. Voluntary actions are those that can find their origin in the agent when there is no ignorance of the particulars. Aristotle demonstrates six kinds of particulars, some of which concern who he is, what he is doing, with what instrument he is performing the action, and how he is doing it. The absence of these indications theoretically means that the action is voluntary. The absence of force also makes actions voluntary. However, to further what makes actions voluntary, actions done out of ignorance but not necessarily done out of ignorance are also voluntary. This idea is relevant to drunk driving accidents. If someone decided to drink at a birthday party and then hurt someone by saying something critical of them, then the action of saying something was done willfully out of ignorance, due to drunkenness. Drinking often allows people to not act sober, making it a voluntary action. Furthermore, if that person then drove home drunk and crashed into another car, this action was performed while unaware of their surroundings but still voluntary. Furthermore, actions forced or due to ignorance are not voluntary. While not all forms of ignorance make an action involuntary, most forms of ignorance that cause remorse or pain make an action involuntary. People often feel remorse following such actions, especially if the action is forced. Aristotle provides two main examples of actions performed by force: when someone is transported by a natural force and when someone is in a kidnapping situation. In an example of kidnapping, if the kidnappers demanded that a kidnapped family member steal from a bank to save all other family members, this forceful action would be involuntary if they wished to save the lives of their family members. In this case, that person does not contribute anything to his action, as he feels constrained by external sources that force the action to occur. Even in this situation they are helpless. Therefore, this example demonstrates how an action under stress is involuntary. However, it may be voluntary because the family member decided to do the action themselves. However, Aristotle's definition of strength as in which involuntary actions are based on external origins and in which a person contributes nothing is narrowed to a significant degree. Although his definition is true, the perception one has of the person subjected to violence varies. His definition lends itself to a depiction of how the person is a victim rather than a personsimply under the influence of an involuntary action. Furthermore, it appears that generally all involuntary actions are negative and occur with little control on the part of the affected person. However, involuntary actions occur under force, compulsion, or ignorance of particulars. Starting from this point, Aristotle also analyzes mixed actions where a given action can be voluntary or involuntary, which more closely resembles the abduction example given above. Aristotle argues that such actions are “rather voluntary,” but in the case of a moral dilemma, I believe the action would be more involuntary because death itself or causing death is something that people generally try to avoid. Furthermore, the psychological pressure would cause that person to break in that moment and later morally regret the action, even if his or her family had been saved in the kidnapping example. A further example of mixed action provided by Aristotle concerned the ship and the sailors: the sailors decided to voluntarily throw the goods overboard to save their lives. The action of throwing the goods into the sea was voluntary, but the fact that they would not have chosen that act in itself normally makes it involuntary. This idea of ​​actions leads to the nature of decision making. Knowing that voluntary action comes from lack of ignorance and an agent's origin, making decisions can lead to discovering one's character. However, before making a decision, some deliberation needs to take place. According to Aristotle, deliberation is a means to an end and influences actions before they are performed. Therefore, a decision is based on prior deliberation and is voluntary. Decisions are voluntary because they have effects and are thought about voluntarily before being implemented. This idea means that decisions are not emotions, desires, or beliefs. Rather, they are deliberations about things that can change. Decisions are not emotions because, for example, if a student succumbed to procrastination, he or she would succumb to the temptation not to study based on that desire. On the other hand, if a student resisted the temptation to not study, he would do so by choice, going against his desire to procrastinate. Furthermore, decisions are not desires, as this refers to a more theoretical mindset, but not specific choices to achieve goals. Finally, it is not a belief, since beliefs are more abstract and non-concrete facts or means. After demonstrating how decisions are voluntary, I will then describe how decisions are character-related. Aristotle states that we are responsible for our virtues and our vices. It also highlights how we are responsible for the decisions we make, considering that our virtues and character help us make decisions. If our decisions are made voluntarily and with deliberation, then they must be made on the basis of our beliefs as individuals and our virtues. To support this point, one specific virtue that Aristotle uses as an example is courage. Putting courage on the scale, recklessness would be a vice, as would cowardice. An excessive amount or deficiency of courage would lead to the vice of recklessness or cowardice. However, tending towards recklessness, courage would be a virtue, although moderation is necessary in considering it. Decisions based on courage as a virtue are often also moral and demonstrate character. This point supports Aristotle's claim that young children and animals are incapable of making decisions, while acting voluntarily. This supports the previous statement because a moral basis is needed to make decisions. In the case of courage, this virtue and other virtues refer to thecharacter. Aristotle also believes that actions that arise from a person with a certain character make him responsible for those actions. This point leads to how a person is the cumulative result of his actions. By performing voluntary actions throughout life, people become the kind of person they acted upon decisions made previously. Side note, while people tend to strive for what they believe is good, everyone's idea of ​​"good" is different. . The way people experience different events and people leads to various characters, meaning they may not necessarily be responsible for their own actions. People also cannot do without what seems good to them, but what seems good to them can influence how they act unconsciously or involuntarily. People are responsible only for what can be decided by them and their character, but they are not responsible in the previous statement. However, Aristotle believes that people should be held accountable regardless. His initial views are that responsible agents are responsible for voluntary actions, although he does not address the consequences of such actions. Furthermore, Aristotle states that even if someone does unjust actions in the form of ignorance, he is still responsible for them. Even if that person had no idea that he was developing poor character, Aristotle would have continued to hold him responsible. To elaborate on this point, a character who is unable to change is also responsible for his own actions, although Aristotle accepts that people cannot change after a certain extent. However, they are still responsible, as they make voluntary decisions and actions based on their character, whether good or bad. To use an earlier example, someone who chooses to drink frequently, promoting unjust behavior, is still responsible for their behavior. This action leads to the same character of injustice without self-control. Aristotle believes that unjust people willfully perform unjust actions and ignore what is right. Furthermore, it is difficult to teach what is good or bad when people grow up in different or even difficult environments. Someone who grows up in a smoking environment may not be aware that smoking is an unjust action if they watch family members around them smoke. However, when making the decision to smoke in the future, it may be more difficult to take into account social opinions about smoking when they clash internally within that individual. Therefore, even when they make the decision to smoke, they are responsible for the subsequent health effects and their actions, while their ignorance prevails. If family members also encourage it as good, then the individual's smoking thinking it is good is out of ignorance and is engaging in some form of involuntary action arising from ignorance. Furthermore, people are responsible for their own character because they have made decisions based on their virtues/vices and, consequently, are influenced by those decisions. Furthermore, Aristotle's objection in 1114b is that people are never responsible for what they do. Previously, Aristotle had developed the concept of responsibility regarding blame and praise. He stated that there are two possibilities: one that praise and blame are appropriate when the person deserves that response as a result of his or her actions or behaviors, and the other is that they are appropriate to improve the person's actions or behavior and alter those consequences . However, praise or blame can only be given if someone does something for which they are responsible. However, it is difficult to appropriate this praise or blame if people are never,.