Book 6 / Chapter 2
Paragraph 3 - The Origin and Role of Choice in Action
Explanation - Part By Part
"The origin of action-its efficient, not its final cause-is choice, and that of choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end. This is why choice cannot exist either without reason and intellect or without a moral state; for good action and its opposite cannot exist without a combination of intellect and character."
Aristotle is explaining how human actions originate and what elements are necessary for a person to choose to act in a certain way. According to him, the immediate "source" (or efficient cause) of action is choice. But for a person to make a choice, two things must come together: desire (your wants or inclinations) and reasoning aimed at a goal or purpose. In other words, choice involves both emotional or impulsive forces (desires) and the rational ability to think about what’s best to pursue.
Aristotle emphasizes that choice cannot exist without two things: (1) the use of reason and intellect (to think about what you should do), and (2) a moral state (your character or sense of right and wrong). These two aspects—your capacity to think and your moral character—need to work together, because you cannot make consistently good choices or take good actions without having both. For example, someone with strong reasoning but poor moral character might make clever but unethical choices, while someone with good intentions but no reasoning might act impulsively or ineffectively. Therefore, for an action to be truly good (in a moral sense), it requires the union of intellect and character.
"Intellect itself, however, moves nothing, but only the intellect which aims at an end and is practical; for this rules the productive intellect, as well, since every one who makes makes for an end, and that which is made is not an end in the unqualified sense (but only an end in a particular relation, and the end of a particular operation)-only that which is done is that; for good action is an end, and desire aims at this."
Aristotle is exploring the relationship between intellect, action, and purpose. He emphasizes that the intellect, by itself, doesn’t cause anything to happen—it doesn’t move or lead to any action on its own. Action occurs only when the intellect is directed toward some goal (an end) and is practical in nature, meaning it’s concerned with how to achieve that goal.
He also explains that practical intellect governs the productive intellect. The productive intellect is focused on "making" things (creating or producing), but even in this case, people create things for the sake of a goal, not as an ultimate end in itself. For instance, when you build a house, the house is not pursued as the ultimate purpose of life—it is made for the purpose of living in it.
In comparison, Aristotle says only completed actions—specifically, morally good actions—can be considered true ends or ultimate goals. Desire is always aimed at achieving this kind of good action. So, intellect and desire work together: the intellect identifies the goal and how to achieve it, while desire gives the motivation to act.
"Hence choice is either desiderative reason or ratiocinative desire, and such an origin of action is a man. (It is to be noted that nothing that is past is an object of choice, e.g. no one chooses to have sacked Troy; for no one deliberates about the past, but about what is future and capable of being otherwise, while what is past is not capable of not having taken place; hence Agathon is right in saying For this alone is lacking even to God, To make undone things thathave once been done.)"
In this part, Aristotle focuses on the nature of choice and gives a very specific clarification: choice is tied to actions that are within our control and directed toward the future, not the past. He explains that choice arises from a combination of reasoning and desire, which makes it uniquely human—it’s not something animals or inanimate objects can do in the same way.
However, important to note is that choices are always about things that can still happen or can still be influenced. For example, no one "chooses" something that's already in the past because the past is unchangeable. Once something has already happened, it’s no longer within the realm of agency or decision-making. Aristotle uses the example that no one can "choose" to undo the sack of Troy (a historical event), because that moment in time is fixed; deliberation and choice are forward-thinking processes.
He also quotes the poet Agathon, who said that even the gods cannot change the past: "For this alone is lacking even to God, to make undone things that have once been done." This highlights a fundamental limitation not just for humans but even for divine power: the past is immutable, and our decisions must focus on what’s yet to come.
"The work of both the intellectual parts, then, is truth. Therefore the states that are most strictly those in respect of which each of these parts will reach truth are the virtues of the two parts."
Aristotle is saying that both aspects of the intellect—the part focused on contemplation (theoretical/intellectual reasoning) and the part focused on practical action and decision-making (practical reasoning)—have a single shared "job": to achieve truth. In other words, the defining purpose or function of these intellectual faculties is to align with what is real or correct.
Following this, he concludes that the "virtues" or the best states of these two intellects would necessarily be the ones that enable each to fulfill this purpose of reaching truth. For instance, the virtue of the practical intellect is about achieving truth in decision-making that leads to right actions, while the virtue of the contemplative intellect involves reaching truth in understanding the nature of reality or the world itself. Virtues, then, are about perfecting how these intellectual parts work so they can best accomplish their respective tasks.