Book 7 / Chapter 6
Paragraph 2 - The Pardon of Natural Desires and Inherited Behavior
Explanation - Part By Part
"Further, we pardon people more easily for following natural desires, since we pardon them more easily for following such appetites as are common to all men, and in so far as they are common; now anger and bad temper are more natural than the appetites for excess, i.e. for unnecessary objects."
Aristotle is arguing here that people are more forgiving when someone acts based on natural desires—urges and emotions that everyone experiences to some degree. These natural inclinations are seen as part of being human and are easier to understand or relate to. For example, anger and frustration (bad temper) are emotions that arise naturally in response to situations, like feeling insulted or wronged. Anger, therefore, is more "acceptable" to some extent because it is a common human reaction.
In contrast, appetites for excess, like craving luxury or indulging in unnecessarily extravagant things, are less forgivable. Why? Because they aren't essential or natural desires shared by all humans; they're driven by a personal choice to go beyond what is needed, which makes them seem less justifiable. Essentially, we empathize more with someone’s natural emotional reactions than with unnecessary indulgences.
"Take for instance the man who defended himself on the charge of striking his father by saying 'yes, but he struck his father, and he struck his, and' (pointing to his child) 'this boy will strike me when he is a man; it runs in the family';"
In this part, Aristotle provides an example to illustrate the idea of excusing or understanding certain behaviors as being "natural" or habitual due to their recurrence across generations. The man in the story defends his action of striking his father by pointing out a pattern: his father struck his father, and so on. By pointing at his son, he implies that this behavior will continue when his son grows up and strikes him. His reasoning suggests that hitting one's father has become a kind of inherited or cyclical behavior within the family, almost as if it is unavoidable or ingrained.
Aristotle likely uses this illustration to emphasize how people may excuse actions perceived as stemming from natural tendencies or ingrained patterns, such as anger or temper, more readily than those based on sheer indulgence or unnecessary desires. In this case, the man leans on the idea of inevitability or "it runs in the family" as a way of justifying or minimizing the seriousness of his actions.
"or the man who when he was being dragged along by his son bade him stop at the doorway, since he himself had dragged his father only as far as that."
Aristotle is using an example here to illustrate how certain actions, especially those connected to anger or familial relationships, might be seen as more natural or understandable due to their context and predictability. The anecdote is about a man being dragged by his son and recognizing the irony of the situation. He asks his son to stop dragging him at the doorway because, in his own youth, he had dragged his father only that far. This reflects a kind of generational cycle—where the same anger or aggression is passed down and repeated within the family.
The story underscores that anger and bad temper, though undesirable, might be excused more easily because they can seem inherent to human nature or familiar interpersonal dynamics. In contrast, giving in to urges for unnecessary or excessive pleasures (like gluttony or indulgence) might appear less forgivable because they're not driven by something as "natural" or predictable. Aristotle's focus here is on how societal and personal perspectives shape what we pardon or condemn.