FREE ESSAY ON WHERE DOES VOLUNTARY BEGIN?

WHERE DOES VOLUNTARY BEGIN?

Where Does Voluntary Begin?
Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle attempts to define the meaning of ethics and to create
the perfect society as did Plato in The Republic. In Aristotle's attempt at definition he
discusses the difference and significance of voluntary and involuntary action. Beginning
by defining, Aristotle soon realizes many situations are too complex for just black vs.
white terms and he introduces another term; non-voluntary. This leads to discussion of
choice and deliberation, bringing his viewpoints into applicable terms, out of philosophy
and into everyday life. 
Before beginning to understand how Aristotle is applicable, his viewpoint must be
examined, such as his version of voluntary action. As he says in Book III of Nichomachean
Ethics ...the terms 'voluntary' and 'involuntary' are used with reference to the moment
of action...because the initiative in moving the parts of the body which act as
instruments rests with the agent himself (p.53). So, a voluntary action is one about
which we have power. Such as, what to eat in the morning, brushing teeth or even life
altering decisions about jobs and marriage. Most of our everyday actions are voluntary,
since we do not often act outside our realm of power. 
Aristotle tends to agree that most actions are voluntary and from this fact comes much of
the praise we receive for our actions, ...sometimes people are even praised for doing
them [voluntary actions], for example, if they endured shameful or painful treatment in
return (p.53). If others feel that an action is worthy or noble they will acknowledge the
person's conscious choice of the action and see they receive due reward. In general,
Aristotle feels that people are in control of their actions, whether a thoughtful choice
is made or not.
Here Aristotle makes a distinction, a voluntary action is not necessarily a choice. A
choice is a thoughtful decision, as he points out For choice is not shared by irrational
creatures... (p.58). Children and animals are capable of voluntary action, such as
eating, running, communicating, but they are not capable of choice, for choice begins to
enter into the moral realm. Choice is an action of a creature that can reason because
logic is a necessary ingredient for choice.
Only when logical creatures lack knowledge or are under duress do they move away from
choice and voluntary action to involuntary action. Aristotle states his point quite
clearly when he says, ...actions done under constraint or due to ignorance are
involuntary (p.52). An action is involuntary when the source of initiative comes from
outside, Aristotle use the example of a person carried away by the wind, he is obviously
not responsible for his action of moving, this would be an example of involuntary action
due to constraint. 
However, when involuntary actions begin to involve ignorance, Aristotle states the only
type of valid ignorance is that in which the agent is unaware of the affect of his action
on the thing or person affected. Aristotle would say a drunken man is acting in
ignorance, while a man unaware of social customs is acting due to ignorance. Here is also
where the distinction between involuntary and non- voluntary action is drawn.
The distinction is found in a man's reaction to his involuntary action. Aristotle feels
that an involuntary action due to ignorance is only when the action brings regret or
sadness in is aftermath. As he says of the man who feels no remorse, ...nor yet was he an
involuntary agent inasmuch as he feels no sorrow (p.55), this man would be called a non-
voluntary agent. 
Non-voluntary action is when the action causes no regret or pain from its consequences.
Actions could range from throwing cargo off a ship in a storm to a serial killer's
rampage of murder. These are actions performed under constraint but constraint in such a
way that voluntary action is still possible. Aristotle uses the example of a man asked to
commit a heinous crime and so saves his family from death. This is not involuntary as the
man has a choice on whether to commit the crime or not but he makes his decision under
distress and most likely will not regret his decision, thus making it a non-voluntary
action. 
At this point one begins to relate to Aristotle's statements on the concepts of
voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary actions. In fact one recent political issue
begins to surface. The sex scandal involving President Clinton and his intern Monica
Lewinsky. When looked at from the standpoint of a voluntary action it seems obvious that
the sexual relations between Clinton and Lewinsky were voluntary. As Aristotle defines
voluntary or involuntary actions as occurring at the moment of action, both parties were
making the relations happen, in fact both probably made a choice to continue. So, at this
point in the relationship the actions were voluntary. Here, I would like to digress and
discuss my views on voluntary action. For me I would identify voluntary action more
closely with what Aristotle identifies as choice. As I think of voluntary action I think
of a moral choice, while I understand that spontaneous action and routine action is
voluntary I would argue that even the simplest action requires an amount of choice. I
would say voluntary action is that action which we choose to do, it is the action we are
aware of and make the decision to continue with. So, especially, by my personal
definition Clinton and Lewinsky were at a voluntary action stage. 
As for involuntary action, using Clinton as an example I would say his confession to the
American public was involuntary or at least non-voluntary. However, much closer to
involuntary as the circumstances that caused him to confess, Kenneth Star's investigation
and Lewinsky's testimony, were completely out of his control, but he still had an option
making it non-voluntary. I would say that a non-voluntary action is when a person has no
plausible option due to circumstances, such as a kill or be killed situation. Whereas a
involuntary action is completely out of one's personal range of power. So, it seems I see
involuntary and non-voluntary actions in the same light as Aristotle.
I would, however, like to add one distinction in the case of involuntary actions. To me
an involuntary action implies the primitive in a person, bodily functions and perhaps
appetites and passions for none of these can really be controlled, although the case of
appetites and passions begin to get vague because we as logical creatures can choose how
to respond. Involuntary seems to refer to animals and children, both are rules completely
by their passions, while they can choose what to respond to it is extremely limited.
Limited to such a sense that referring to a chosen action, as chosen seems untrue. 
Perhaps here is where the dilemma lies, which action is voluntary and which is
involuntary. Where is the distinction and how does one recognize it. If Clinton and
Lewinsky's relations were voluntary and his confession involuntary, what about his first
denial of relations, was that voluntary, or was he in such fear of the consequences that
it became a non-voluntary action? The truth could be one or the other or in fact all of
the above. 
Distinction becomes even more difficult when defining involuntary and voluntary, when is
the line drawn in the case of passion and irrationality. This could be what Aristotle was
deliberating when he wrote, ...but the irrational emotions are considered no less a part
of human beings than reasoning is, and hence, the actions of a man which spring from
passion and appetite are equally a part of him. It would be absurd, then, to count them
as involuntary (p.57). Irrationality as a part of the logical and decision making
process, how is this possible and how does one define it. The key maybe just that
impossibility, that each action and thought process are irrevocably tied together. Though
each is separate and distinct, easily defined at first glance, a deeper evaluation cause
a realization of the interwoven nature of each thing. The only answer that seems to give
a glimpse of definition or clarification to the whole matter is said by Aristotle, ...and
where the source of motion is within oneself, it is in one's power to act or not to act.
(p.53). Our source in within ourselves, inside is where we respond to our emotions,
passions and logic, through this comes our power and with this power we can move forward
as creatures or respond only to the most elemental part of our being. There is always a
choice, not often does the wind come to sweep a person away and if it does they can grab
on to a tree. And so again, the question is where does voluntary begin and involuntary
end and visa versa.