Book 3 / Chapter 1
Paragraph 6 - Voluntary and Involuntary Actions in Ethics
Explanation - Part By Part
"Everything that is done by reason of ignorance is not voluntary; it is only what produces pain and repentance that is involuntary."
Aristotle is saying that just because someone does something out of ignorance doesn't automatically mean their action is involuntary. For it to truly count as involuntary, the person must feel regret or pain about what they’ve done once they realize their mistake. Without regret, the action doesn't fit the definition of an "involuntary" act—it’s simply something done without full understanding.
"For the man who has done something owing to ignorance, and feels not the least vexation at his action, has not acted voluntarily, since he did not know what he was doing, nor yet involuntarily, since he is not pained."
Aristotle is addressing the idea of actions done out of ignorance. He argues that if someone does something without knowing what they are doing and does not feel any regret or discomfort afterward, their action does not fall neatly into either "voluntary" or "involuntary."
It's not voluntary because they didn't have knowledge of their actions, meaning they lacked awareness or intention. However, it can't be called fully involuntary either, because for an act to be truly involuntary, it must also cause some form of distress or regret once the person realizes what they've done. In this case, the individual doesn’t feel bothered by what they did, so it occupies a kind of ambiguous middle ground.
"Of people, then, who act by reason of ignorance he who repents is thought an involuntary agent, and the man who does not repent may, since he is different, be called a not voluntary agent;"
Aristotle is making a distinction here between two kinds of actions done out of ignorance. If someone does something wrong because they didn't know any better and later feels regret or pain over their actions, Aristotle considers this person an involuntary agent. Why? Because their regret shows that, had they known, they wouldn’t have made that choice—they didn’t willingly choose harm.
On the other hand, a person who acts out of ignorance but feels no regret or pain afterward (perhaps because they don’t care or don’t even realize their action was wrong) is different. Aristotle creates a new category for this kind of person and calls them a not voluntary agent. This term signals that they are acting from ignorance but without the remorse that would make their action clearly involuntary. He sees a need to distinguish this apathy or indifference from true involuntary behavior.
"for, since he differs from the other, it is better that he should have a name of his own."
Aristotle is making a nuanced point here about human actions and the motivations behind them, especially when ignorance is involved. He argues that there are different types of ignorance-driven actions, and they should not all be lumped together under one term. Specifically, he points out that a person who acts out of ignorance but later regrets it is clearly "involuntary" because their regret shows they would not have chosen to act that way if they had known better.
However, if someone acts out of ignorance and does not feel any regret or pain afterward, Aristotle thinks this person is different. They are not acting "voluntarily" because they still lacked knowledge, but they also cannot be considered fully "involuntary" because there’s no pain or remorse (which are key traits of an involuntary act). For this reason, Aristotle argues that such people deserve a category or label of their own, distinct from both the "voluntary" and the "involuntary." By doing so, he's showing the importance of recognizing subtle differences in human behavior and responsibility.