Book 3 / Chapter 5
Paragraph 3 - Responsibility and Ignorance in Ethics
Explanation - Part By Part
"Witness seems to be borne to this both by individuals in their private capacity and by legislators themselves; for these punish and take vengeance on those who do wicked acts (unless they have acted under compulsion or as a result of ignorance for which they are not themselves responsible), while they honour those who do noble acts, as though they meant to encourage the latter and deter the former."
Aristotle is pointing out that both individuals and governments recognize that people are responsible for their actions when they are done voluntarily. Society punishes those who commit harmful or "wicked" actions unless they were forced to do so or acted out of ignorance that wasn't their fault. At the same time, society praises and rewards people for doing virtuous or "noble" actions. This system of punishment and reward serves to encourage good behavior and discourage wrongdoing. It reflects the belief that people are generally in control of their actions and can be held accountable for them.
"But no one is encouraged to do the things that are neither in our power nor voluntary; it is assumed that there is no gain in being persuaded not to be hot or in pain or hungry or the like, since we shall experience these feelings none the less."
Aristotle is pointing out that no one tries to encourage or dissuade others about things that are outside of their control or not matters of choice. For example, no one advises you to stop feeling hot, to avoid being in physical pain, or to not feel hungry—because these are natural, inevitable experiences that aren't subject to your will. They are not things you can simply decide to avoid or change, so there's no point in trying to influence someone's behavior in those areas.
"Indeed, we punish a man for his very ignorance, if he is thought responsible for the ignorance, as when penalties are doubled in the case of drunkenness; for the moving principle is in the man himself, since he had the power of not getting drunk and his getting drunk was the cause of his ignorance."
Aristotle is pointing out that society holds people responsible for their actions, even when those actions stem from ignorance, as long as the ignorance is seen as their own fault. For example, if someone gets drunk and then commits a wrong act, they cannot claim ignorance as an excuse. This is because the choice to get drunk was entirely within their control, and their drunken state—which led to their ignorance—was a result of that choice. By this reasoning, the responsibility for the wrongdoing still lies with the person, since the "moving principle" (the cause leading to the action) starts with their own decisions.
"And we punish those who are ignorant of anything in the laws that they ought to know and that is not difficult, and so too in the case of anything else that they are thought to be ignorant of through carelessness; we assume that it is in their power not to be ignorant, since they have the power of taking care."
Aristotle is making the point here that ignorance is not always an acceptable excuse for wrongdoing, especially when it comes to things people ought to know—like basic laws or responsibilities. If someone doesn’t know something that is considered easy to understand or widely known, this lack of knowledge is often seen as their own fault. Why? Because people are assumed to have the ability to take precautions, educate themselves, and avoid ignorance through effort and care. For example, if someone breaks a law and claims they didn’t know it, they can still be held accountable because they were expected to take the time to learn and understand those laws.
The key idea here is that ignorance resulting from carelessness or lack of effort is viewed as something voluntary. Since people have the power to "take care" and be more informed, their failure to do so is treated as a choice, and they are punished accordingly.