Book 3 / Chapter 1
Paragraph 8 - Ignorance and Involuntary Action
Explanation - Part By Part
"Now every wicked man is ignorant of what he ought to do and what he ought to abstain from, and it is by reason of error of this kind that men become unjust and in general bad;"
Aristotle is saying that people who are morally bad or unjust act that way because they lack a proper understanding of what they should or should not do. In other words, wickedness stems from a kind of ignorance about the right course of action or the right things to avoid. This misunderstanding or "error" is what leads people to act wrongly and become unjust or bad in a general sense. Essentially, bad behavior is often rooted in not knowing (or failing to grasp) the ethical path.
"but the term 'involuntary' tends to be used not if a man is ignorant of what is to his advantage- for it is not mistaken purpose that causes involuntary action (it leads rather to wickedness), nor ignorance of the universal (for that men are blamed),"
In this part, Aristotle points out that the term "involuntary" does not apply to actions where someone is simply ignorant of what is in their best interest or what benefits them (ignorance of what is to his advantage). This kind of ignorance isn't seen as an excuse for involuntary action because it reflects a deeper flaw in one's character or purpose—what he calls a mistaken purpose. Rather than leading to involuntary actions (which might be forgivable), this type of mistake tends to make a person morally bad or wicked.
Moreover, the term "involuntary" also doesn't apply when someone is ignorant of universal truths—general principles of right and wrong—because people are held accountable for this kind of ignorance. If someone ignores or misunderstands these broader moral or ethical rules, society tends to blame them because they are expected to know them.
Aristotle is essentially distinguishing between different kinds of ignorance, suggesting that not all ignorance excuses a person's actions.
"but ignorance of particulars, i.e. of the circumstances of the action and the objects with which it is concerned."
In this part, Aristotle is making an important distinction about the type of ignorance that excuses someone from responsibility. He is saying that being unaware of specific details—the "particulars"—surrounding an action (like the specific situation or the nature of what you're dealing with) is what can make an action involuntary. For instance, if someone unknowingly gives poison to a friend, thinking it's medicine, their ignorance of the specific fact that it was poison, not medicine, is what might make their harmful action involuntary.
In contrast, ignorance of general moral principles (“universal” truths, like knowing right from wrong) wouldn’t excuse someone—it would just make them blameworthy or bad. So, for Aristotle, not knowing the specifics involved in a situation matters more when determining whether an action is truly involuntary. This is why such ignorance could lead others to have pity or forgive the person.
"For it is on these that both pity and pardon depend, since the person who is ignorant of any of these acts involuntarily."
In this part, Aristotle is explaining that the notions of pity and pardon (i.e., feeling sorry for someone’s actions or forgiving them) arise when a person acts involuntarily—that is, without intending to do something wrong—because they were unaware of specific details or circumstances surrounding their actions.
He emphasizes that ignorance of these "particulars" (the concrete facts about a situation) is what makes someone act without intention, and thus their actions are considered involuntary. For example, if someone accidentally harms another person because they didn’t know a critical piece of information—like not realizing a tool they thought was safe was actually dangerous—this ignorance might make their action an honest mistake rather than a deliberate wrongdoing. In such cases, society is more likely to show compassion or forgiveness.