In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents a theory of moral responsibility that involves actions and the acquisition of character. It examines when and how individuals are responsible and objects to the case where people are never responsible for what they do. I first describe the concepts of moral responsibility, virtues, actions, and decision-making, then I analyze Aristotle's objection and response. In this essay, I will argue that this objection is rejected because it ignores 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Moral responsibility is composed of 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 actions: non-voluntary, involuntary and voluntary. However, I will mainly focus on the voluntary and the involuntary for the purpose of defining actions. Voluntary actions are those that can originate within the agent when there is no ignorance of the details. Aristotle proves six types of details, some of which are who one is, what one does, with what instrument one does the action, and how one does it. The absence of these mentions theoretically means that the action is voluntary. The absence of force also makes actions voluntary. Yet, to reinforce what makes actions voluntary, actions that are done in ignorance but not necessarily out of ignorance are also voluntary. This idea also applies to drunk driving incidents. If someone made the decision to drink at a birthday party and then hurt someone by saying something critical of them, then that action of saying something was done intentionally in ignorance, because he was drunk. Drinking often allows people to not act sober, making it a voluntary action. Additionally, if that person then drove their car home while intoxicated and crashed into another car, that act was done in ignorance of their surroundings but still voluntary. Furthermore, actions imposed by force or ignorance are not voluntary. Although not all forms of ignorance make an action involuntary, the majority of those that cause regret or pain make an action involuntary. Often people feel regret as a result of these actions, especially if the action is forced. Aristotle gives two main examples of actions imposed under force: when a person is carried by a natural force and when a person is placed in a situation of abduction. In an example of kidnapping, if the kidnappers demanded that a kidnapped family member rob a bank to save all the other members of their family, this action carried out under force was unintentional if they wished to save the members' lives of their family. In this case, this person does not contribute anything more to his action, because he feels constrained by external origins which force the action to occur. They are also helpless in this situation. This example therefore shows how under force, an action is involuntary. Yet, it could be voluntary because the family member decided to do the action themselves. However, Aristotle's definition of force, according to which involuntary actions depend on external origins and how a person contributes nothing, is very narrow. If its definition is true, it varies the perceptiondata of the person placed under duress. Its definition helps describe how the person is a victim rather than someone simply under the influence of an involuntary act. Furthermore, it gives the impression that generally all unintentional actions are negative and occur with little control on the part of the person involved. However, involuntary actions occur under force, duress, or ignorance of details. Building on this point, Aristotle also analyzes mixed actions where a given action can be voluntary or involuntary, which is more like the kidnapping example given above. Aristotle does claim that these actions are "rather voluntary", but in the case of a moral dilemma, I believe the action would be more involuntary because death itself or the act of causing death is something that the people generally seek to avoid. this would cause that person to break down in that moment and later morally regret their action, even if their family was saved in the kidnapping example. Another example of mixed action provided by Aristotle concerns the ship and the sailors – the sailors decided to voluntarily throw goods overboard in order to save their lives. The action of throwing the goods overboard was voluntary, but the fact that they would not choose this act in itself normally makes it involuntary. This idea of ​​actions leads to the nature of decision making. Knowing that voluntary action arises from a lack of ignorance and an origin in an agent, making decisions can lead to discovering one's character. However, before making a decision, deliberation must take place. According to Aristotle, deliberation is a means to an end and influences actions before they are performed. A decision is therefore based on prior deliberation and is voluntary. Decisions are voluntary because they have effects and are considered voluntarily before being implemented. This idea means that decisions are not emotions, desires or beliefs. Rather, it is about deliberations about things that can change. Decisions are not emotions because, for example, if a student gave in to procrastination, he or she would give in to the temptation of not studying because of that desire. On the other hand, if a student resisted the temptation not to study, it would be by choice while going against their desire to procrastinate. Then, decisions are not wishes, as that is a more theoretical mindset, but not specific choices to achieve goals. Finally, it is not a belief, because beliefs are more abstract and not concrete facts or means. Having demonstrated how decisions are voluntary, I will then describe how decisions relate to character. Aristotle states that we are responsible for our virtues and our vices. It also highlights how we are responsible for the decisions made, considering that our virtues and character help us make decisions. If our decisions are made voluntarily and deliberately, then they must be made based on our beliefs as individuals and our virtues. To support this point, a specific virtue that Aristotle uses as an example is courage. Putting courage on a scale, rashness would be a vice, just like cowardice. An excess or lack of courage would lead to the vice of rashness or cowardice. However, if one leans towards rashness, courage would be a virtue, although moderation is necessary when considering it. Decisions based on courage as a virtue are also often moral, demonstrating character. This point supports Aristotle's assertion that young children and animals areincapable of making decisions, even though they act voluntarily. This supports the previous statement because to make decisions, a moral basis is necessary. In the case of courage, this and other virtues are linked to character. Aristotle also believes that actions that arise from a person having a certain character make them responsible for those actions. This point leads us to understand how a person is the cumulative result of their actions. By performing voluntary actions throughout life, people become the kind of person they acted on based on decisions previously made. By the way, although people tend to strive for what they believe to be good, everyone's idea of ​​"good" is different. . The way people experience different events and people leads to different personas that mean they are not necessarily responsible for their actions. People also cannot prevent what seems good to them, but what seems good to them can affect the way they act unconsciously or unintentionally. People are only responsible for what can be decided by them and their character, but they are not responsible for the previous statement. However, Aristotle believes that people should be held responsible regardless. His initial view is that responsible agents are responsible for voluntary actions, although he does not address the consequences of those actions. Additionally, Aristotle states that even if someone commits unjust actions in a form of ignorance, they are still responsible for them. Even if this person had no idea that they were developing a bad character, Aristotle would still hold them responsible. To go further, a character who is incapable of change is also responsible for his actions, even though Aristotle admits that people cannot change after a certain degree. However, they remain responsible, as they make voluntary decisions and actions based on their character, whether good or bad. To return to a previous example, someone who decides to drink often, 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 commit unjust actions and ignore what is just. Additionally, it is difficult to teach what is good or bad when people grow up in different and even difficult environments. A person who grows up in a smoking environment may not know that smoking is wrong if they watch their family members around them smoking. Yet, when making the decision to smoke in the future, it may be more difficult to consider social views about smoking when they conflict internally for that individual. So even when they make the decision to smoke, they are responsible for the effects on their health and their actions, while their ignorance prevails. If family members also encourage that it is good, then the individual's smoking thinking it is good is ignorance and is involved 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 are therefore influenced by those decisions. Furthermore, Aristotle's objection in 1114b is that people are never responsible for what they do. Previously, Aristotle developed the concept of responsibility in relation to blame and praise. He said there are two possibilities: one in which praise and blame are appropriate when the person deserves that response,.