Theory of Responsibility: Explanation, Plausibility, Response

The debate on to what degree we as a society are responsible for our own actions is not a new one. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s beliefs of moral theory and responsibility are detailed and taught to his students. We have the opportunity to debate and apply them to experiences of our own. In this individual case that we will be discussing, the main character Adele is trying to justify her drunk driving and killing a motorist by stating her thoughts on character and morality. I will discuss the theories that explain our decisions and how they relate to Adele, state the main objection to the theory of responsibility, craft a response from Aristotle’s perspective, and define my own opinion in relation to Aristotle’s argument.

Aristotle has several major theories that are relevant to explaining and arguing Adele’s case as well as basic moral principles and I will explain three of them, with the first being the theory of character acquisition. This theory states that people acquire their characters by their actions which become habit. Our habits end up determining our character because they outwardly express how we think and allow for people to judge the way in which we respond to pleasures and pain in life. This theory is described when Aristotle offers a statement in section five of book three that reads, “But if doing, and likewise not doing, fine or shameful actions is up to us, and if, as we saw, [doing or nor doing them] is [what it is] to be a good or bad person, being decent or base is up to us.”

One common worry with this theory is that in order to be a just or virtuous person, you have to perform just actions but how can a person perform these actions without being a just person. A better explanation of this worry is similar to the time old question, which came first, the chicken or the egg, an example discussed in recitation. According to section four in book two of Nicomachean Ethics, we can respond to this worry by placing conditions on the intentions and performance of our actions to ensure they are coming from the right place. The conditions that regulate acting are knowing that the action is virtuous, choosing the action for itself, and doing it from a firm state. Adele defends this argument herself by stating that “I may be the sort of person I am now in part because of things I’ve thought, or felt, or done, in the past.” This quote supports the argument that people are who they are because of their actions, hence the things they have done, which supports the theory of character acquisition.

The next theory that is used when debating Adele’s scenario is Aristotle’s action theory. Aristotle believes that actions are divided into two major types, voluntary and not voluntary, with several sub-groups that each action is specifically categorized as. Not voluntary actions are either rooted in force or ignorance, with force being strictly physical in accordance with Aristotle. Being rooted in ignorance actually can be differentiated into two types, in ignorance which are actions performed with an altered background, for example actions performed while you are inebriated. Acting from ignorance which means that you are aware of what you are doing but do not recognize the consequences and that the ignorance is more of a source of the action. Not voluntary actions are also placed into either involuntary or nonvoluntary classifications. Involuntary actions are ones that the perpetrator feels remorse for and nonvoluntary actions are ones in which the person who commits the action does not feel remorse for.

Voluntary actions are described as either being mixed actions or fully voluntary. Mixed actions are actions that are not executed entirely based on choice and what the responsible party wants. A better understanding of this comes from Aristotle when he talks about a ship captain who in order to save himself as well as his men begins toss his cargo overboard. While this action stems from an outside factor, he is technically responsible for the choice to throw the cargo, which makes it fall in the voluntary spectrum, but is not completely up to him. The other type of voluntary action is fully voluntary, which basically means what it says. The choice only has weight in what the person who makes the decision deems suitable. In relation to Adele’s situation, her action of killing the motorist falls under the nonvoluntary region in terms of Aristotle’s theory. The action was founded in her drunken state which technically makes it in ignorance when thinking in terms of Aristotle, thus placing it under not voluntary. Adele does not seem to feel regret for her actions, only fear for someone to find out what she did, which is the premise for a nonvoluntary action.

The third theory relevant to this topic also brings us to the main objection of the argument is Aristotle’s theory of responsibility. The theory of responsibility is defined by the concept that people are responsible for their voluntary actions, which is debated in book three of Nicomachean Ethics. In book three, Aristotle states “For we are in control of actions from the beginning to the end, when we know the particulars.” This combines the theory of actions which distinguishes between voluntary and not voluntary actions with the theory of responsibility which states that we are responsible for the actions that we know the particulars of, or voluntary actions. People are responsible for the actions that they know the particulars of because they have the capacity to make a fully informed judgement. These fully informed judgement calls indicate the type of person someone is, virtuous or not, which is a point of relevance for Aristotle.

An objection is given which states we are not responsible for our actions because our actions are determined by our character to which Aristotle replies that we are responsible for our characters, as seen in the theory of character acquisition. The response to this claim by Aristotle is the statement up for discussion but will only be discussed in terms of the theory of responsibility for this particular point. The response to this states that what if we are not responsible for our character and that we act from ignorance because we believe that it is best for us. Adele supports the final objection and believes that we are not responsible for our own character, which is evident in the last paragraph of the vignette, particularly a quote that says,” Don’t tell me that I could have been different than I am. I’m not responsible for being the kind of person I am.” This line proves that Adele would also believe that since we are not responsible for our character, we are not responsible for our voluntary actions.

Like stated previously, the objection up for conversation at 1114b is in response to Aristotle’s theory of responsibility. This objection states that we are not responsible for our voluntary actions because we are not responsible for our character. This is supported by the objection that studies the idea that one could be ignorant to what is actually best for them, thus their actions reflect the not voluntary action region. This is closely tied to the theory of decision because it states that all actions you decide on are voluntary, but not all voluntary actions you decide on. I would better explain this principle by comparing it to a square being a rectangle but a rectangle not being square. This is relevant because according to Aristotle, one can only deliberate and change voluntary actions that are decided on and the means to get to a result, not the actual result. By saying that you can only change the route to a conclusion, not the conclusion, how could one be held accountable for the consequences of the character responsible for the outcomes. This objection relates to Adele’s circumstance because she believes that she cannot help the person that she is and that her character determined her drinking which led to the death of the motorist, thus not holding her responsible. I am sympathetic to the idea that Adele believes her voluntary action of drinking she was not responsible for because she did not decide on it. If the objector is correct and people are not responsible for their actions or their characters, it would disprove the character acquisition theory because according to Aristotle, we acquire our theories. The objector believes that our characters are not acquired but given to us by variables that we cannot control, which ultimately nullifies the character acquisition theory which is a major part of the theory of responsibility.

A response to the objection that we are not responsible for our character based on Aristotle’s original statement that we are responsible for our voluntary actions can be created by altering Aristotle’s argument to state that we are responsible for our voluntary and some of our not voluntary actions. The type of person you are can mostly dictate the situations you are in that require one to make choices to carry out actions, sometimes voluntary and sometimes not. If we believe that people are responsible for some of their actions, regardless of category, and that actions are the cause of character, like stated in theory of character acquisition and we make the decision to conduct actions based on being virtuous and choosing the action in of itself (one of the conditions for acting), that would make our characters be solely our decision. Some actions that are technically not voluntary can still be under our control based on the circumstances that encompass them. A clearer way of explaining this modification would be to say that if we are responsible for actions we make despite their type and can attribute action to character, than we can state that we are responsible for our characters because we are responsible for our actions. Adele tried to argue that we are not responsible for our characters and that she could not be held accountable for her actions because her character determined her actions. She placed herself in the situation to knowingly get drunk, as she repeatedly stated that getting drunk was her intention, so she was responsible for going to the party, driving, and drinking, which equates to her being responsible for killing the motorist. The objector could respond to this argument by saying that the case-by-case study is not practical when deciding whether or not every action is not feasible. However, a case-by-case study is necessary when analyzing actions that have major consequences, for example Adele’s experience.

In accordance with the modification, I agree with Aristotle that people are responsible for their actions as well as their character. Character is not something that is innate, people may have tendencies towards certain qualities but the character of a person is ever evolving based on the choices that we make and the motives that are behind these choices.

Most of Aristotle’s original theories are flawed to fit the mold of how we judge today. For example, in the theory of action, force is only in regards to physical force when there are instances when someone can use emotional and mental force to get a person to carry out an action. If someone performs an action while under hypnosis hypothetically, they would not have done this action out of anything other than force from the hypnotist. I agree that people are responsible for their actions because even if an action is not exactly what you wanted, no one can fully remove themselves from having any part of what happens. Some decision you have made in the past affects what is happening now, and that no one is fully extracted from every choice made in their life, by them or for them.