ETHICS

Aristotle is saying that not all actions done without deliberate intent (involuntary acts) are automatically forgivable. Some can be excused, while others cannot, depending on the circumstances surrounding the act. This introduces the idea that context and motivation matter when judging whether an involuntary action is acceptable or not.

Aristotle is making an important distinction here. He says that there are certain mistakes or wrongful actions that people commit not just while being ignorant (acting in a state of ignorance), but because of ignorance (ignorance is the root cause of the mistake). These types of errors, according to Aristotle, can be excused because the person did not have the knowledge or awareness necessary to avoid the wrongdoing. This means the mistake wasn't entirely within their control, as it stemmed from a lack of understanding or information.

Aristotle is highlighting a subtle but important difference here. He is saying that there are certain actions that people might commit "in ignorance" (meaning they don't fully understand what they're doing at the moment), but the reason for their ignorance matters when judging whether their actions are excusable or not.

If someone acts out of ignorance caused by irrational passions, such as an extreme, unnatural emotional state that isn’t a typical human response or isn't something most people normally experience, then their actions cannot be excused. This is because such passions are outside the bounds of what is "natural" or relatable for humans—they're excessive or unreasonable—and therefore the person is still accountable for failing to control themselves or their feelings.

To put it simply: ignorance caused by a wild, unnatural outburst of emotion doesn’t let you off the hook for your actions, because those kinds of passions are neither normal nor expected human behavior.