ETHICS

Aristotle is arguing here that "choice" is something more deliberate and thoughtful than mere impulses like appetite or anger, which are shared by animals and other irrational creatures. He is emphasizing that choice is a uniquely human capacity, tied to reasoning and intentional decision-making, whereas appetite (desire for food, pleasure, etc.) and anger are instinctive, emotional reactions that do not require rational thought. This distinction highlights the deeper, reflective nature of choice as opposed to automatic or emotional drives.

Here, Aristotle is making an important distinction between two different ways people can make decisions or act. Let’s break it down:

- An incontinent man is someone who gives in to their appetites—their impulses or desires—without exercising rational control. This person might know what the right thing to do is but fails to act on it because they are overwhelmed by their immediate cravings or emotions. In this case, their actions are driven by appetite rather than by deliberate choice.

- On the other hand, a continent man (someone with self-control) resists acting based on mere appetite and instead uses reason and chooses to act in alignment with what they believe is right. Even if they feel tempted by their desires, they make a choice to behave according to their principles or reasoned judgment, not their impulses.

Aristotle's point here is that acting on desires without reflection (as the incontinent man does) isn’t the same as making a deliberate, rational choice (which the continent man does). This highlights the importance of rational self-control in living a virtuous life.

Aristotle is making a distinction here between appetite and choice, highlighting how they are fundamentally different in nature and operation.

When Aristotle says, "appetite is contrary to choice, but not appetite to appetite," he is pointing out that our desires (or appetites) often pull us in directions that conflict with our rational decisions (or choices). For example, you might feel a strong urge (appetite) to binge on junk food because it’s pleasurable, but your rational judgment (choice) tells you to eat something healthier because it's better for you in the long run. In contrast, one appetite doesn’t naturally contradict another appetite—if you feel a craving for one thing and then another, they're simply multiple desires, not inherently opposed to one another in the way appetite conflicts with rational choice.

The next part—"appetite relates to the pleasant and the painful, choice neither to the painful nor to the pleasant"—emphasizes that appetite operates on an emotional level. Our appetites are drawn to what feels good (pleasant) and avoid what feels bad (painful). Choice, on the other hand, is a rational process and is not directly tied to what is pleasurable or painful. Instead, it's about deliberate decision-making, grounded in reason and thought about what is good or right, regardless of whether the outcome is pleasant or unpleasant.

In simple terms: appetite chases what feels good; choice aims for what’s rationally better. This distinction sets the stage for understanding human behavior as a mix of emotional impulses and rational deliberation.

In this part, Aristotle is emphasizing that acts driven by anger are not guided by choice. When people act out of anger, their actions are typically impulsive and reactionary, not the result of deliberate, rational decision-making. Choice, as he is defining it, involves a thoughtful consideration of options and is tied to reasoning. Anger, on the other hand, overwhelms reasoning and leads to actions that are, by nature, less reflective and intentional. Hence, actions driven solely by anger are not what Aristotle would consider true "choices."