ETHICS

Aristotle is making an important distinction here between two kinds of scenarios involving ignorance. When someone acts by reason of ignorance, their actions are directly caused by a lack of knowledge or awareness. In other words, their ignorance itself is the root cause of what they do.

However, this is different from acting in ignorance, where the person may not be fully aware of what they are doing at the moment, but their ignorance isn't the primary cause of their action. They could be influenced by other factors, like emotions or external states, which obscure their awareness. So, the difference lies in whether ignorance is the reason for the action or simply the context in which the action occurs.

Aristotle is making a distinction here: when someone acts while drunk or in a fit of rage, their actions aren't caused by ignorance (a lack of knowledge or understanding). Instead, their actions are caused by external factors, like their drunkenness or their emotional state (rage). These factors cloud their judgment and control over their behavior, but it's not the same as being truly ignorant or unaware of what's happening. So, their actions stem from those external influences, even though they may not be acting rationally or thoughtfully.

Aristotle is drawing an important distinction here. He says that when someone acts "in ignorance" (like when they are drunk or overcome by rage), they're not making a conscious, informed decision. However, their actions aren't rooted in ignorance of the facts themselves but rather in their impaired state. In other words, their judgment is clouded or compromised, which causes them to act without truly knowing what they are doing at the time. This is different from acting purely because of a lack of knowledge (ignorance of facts). Their behavior stems from their condition (drunkenness or anger) rather than not knowing what is right or wrong.