Ignorance And Willingness In Nicomachean Ethics

Ignorance and Willingness In Nicomachean Ethics Book III, Aristotle depicts actions assumed in ignorance and caused by ignorance (Aristotle). Aristotle further enlightens the individual actions as being voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. The following further explains Aristotle’s views of ignorance and whether the act of the individual is accomplished willingly, non-willingly or unwillingly.

This is a depiction of Aristotle’s diverse definitions of individuals performing acts as voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. The voluntary individual is willing and able to perform the action. After accomplishing the action and the individual comes to regret that action, then that person becomes unwilling. According to philosophy professor

Blaming the licentious individual may seem rational, however the true culprit could be the act itself. Moreover, the person may not understand their action, which also exemplifies an act done in ignorance. When an action is caused by ignorance, “…blameworthiness – the fact that excuses operate at the level of particular descriptions of the agent’s actions –” emerges (The Factual Ignorance Excuse). After all, based on ignorance of particulars determines whether or not an action is blameworthy. According to The Factual Ignorance Excuse, an article from the University of Oxford’s website, “…excuses can operate at the level of particular action-descriptions, as well as at the level of the agent’s conduct as a whole, or his actions at a particular time” (The Factual Ignorance Excuse). Moreover, if the individual acts out of ignorance, they may be excused from their action. Individuals continuously analyze Aristotle’s works and presumably will continue in the following generations. However, the works of Aristotle may be tricky to understand. Yet this analysis of Aristotle’s explanations of ignorance and willingness should be better understood after this