Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics - Essay ExampleExamples of such emotions can be lust, greed, anger, jealousy, hatred, joy, and-in some cases- take down love. However a continent individual is adequate to(p) to resist the pressure of such emotions. He is able to dutifully abide by the path that reason prescribes, yet if in reality he has no desire for doing so. This dutiful adherence to goodness is non just applicable to cases where the good course of action has been determined by a persons own intellectual and rational faculties. It can likewise apply to cases where good has been determined and prescribed by society. Dutiful, albeit passive and thoughtless, adherence to ethical norms can also be called continence.An incontinent person (the Greek word is akrats), on the other hand, is one who succumbs to the pressures of his desires and emotions and violates what in his own opinion is the demand of reason. The incontinent person lacks mastery of feelings. However, Aristotle main tained that incontinence is quite distinct from evil. The evil are those who believe that virtues (such as justice, temperance and truthfulness) are useless, and are not to be pursued at all. While the incontinent person fails to pursue good out of a weakness of will, the evil do not even attempt to be virtuous. In other words the evil do not reach the conclusion that the virtuous course of action is rational which seems, much or less, like a defect in their intelligence, or their rational faculties. He refers to the evil as kakos or as phaulos. It is important to note that even though the incontinent are removed from acting in a virtuous manner, they do acknowledge a duty of doing so. Hence, according to Aristotle, their situation is not hopeless (incontinence isnt vicious). Here one might raise the concern that if the incontinent succumb to the inexorable counter-pressure of their desires and their emotions then their actions are involuntary. And since, as the well cognise dictu m suggests, ought implies can, we can safely assume that the incontinent arent morally responsible for their seemingly reprehensible actions. However, Aristotles notion of voluntary (Book 3, Chapter 1) is only when negative. An action is voluntary in two conditions. The first condition is the absence of any sort of compulsion toward the performance of the action, and the second condition is the absence of ignorance rough the harmful consequences of the action. Note that compulsion in used here only in the sense of being compelled by an external force (a force that lies removed the agent). And since desires and emotions lie within a person, therefore when an incontinent person succumbs to the pressure of his desires he can not be said to be acting involuntarily. It is draw that a person will act in ways that are good if he is continent, and resists the irrational appetites that haunt him. However, according to Aristotle, the life of such a person is not virtuous. Aristotle believ es that true virtue and goodness are quite distinct from both continence and incontinence. In fact, Aristotle regards continence, incontinence and