1. 1 Responsibility & Free Will Section 1 Responsibility, Character & Determinism

2. 2 Voluntary Actions  Aristotle argues that voluntary actions are actions that are neither coerced nor due to ignorance.

3. 3 Involuntary Actions  Aristotle argues that actions are involuntary when their agents are coerced by an external force, but not when they’re driven by reasons or feelings.

4. 4 Involuntary Actions  Aristotle argues that actions are involuntary due to ignorance when the agent is unaware of what they’re doing & wouldn’t have done it otherwise, but not when they’re responsible for their unawareness through drunkenness or passion.

5. 5 Character & Voluntary Choice Aristotle further maintains that virtues, vices & in general character are generated through choices & are thus significantly voluntary themselves.

6. 6 Consider.... Aristotle’s view that agents can be coerced by external forces, but not by reasons or feelings.

7. 7 Epicurus & Determinism Epicurus noticed that the determinism of Democritus leaves no room for voluntary choices, & thus for ethical teaching to make a difference.

8. 8 Rejection of Determinism Epicurus therefore rejected determinism, which holds that every event is predictable from natural factors & forces, in favour of the belief that atoms randomly swerve from their foreseeable trajectories.

9. 9 The Stoics & Determinism The Stoics, by contrast, attempted to combine belief in determinism with belief in some human actions being voluntary & freely chosen.

10. 10 Criticism ‘The lazy argument’: If you’re ill, there’s no point in calling a doctor, granted the Stoic belief in fate; for if you’re fated to recover, a doctor will not help, & if you’re fated not to recover, then calling a doctor is futile.

11. 11 Reply The Stoic Chrysippus: The agency of the doctor may be what would cause a difference, & may be fated to cure you. So there is a point in calling a doctor [see note 1 (last slide of this Section)]. Hence the effort of making decisions & taking action may be justified, even if it’s fated; the same would apply to the actions of the Stoics themselves in teaching virtue.

12. 12 But… This reply does little to defend responsibility. Nor does the Stoics’ appeal to character as independent of external forces help if character is itself due to factors beyond the control of the person concerned.

13. 13 Consider… Chrysippus’s view that the nature of people’s character means that some actions are the agent’s responsibility, despite being determined by fate.

14. 14 The Stoics & Epicureans The Stoics were compatibilists: held that determinism & belief in free will may both be true. The Epicureans were incompatibilists: denied that these beliefs can both be true. So were Chrysippus’s Platonist critics.

15. 15 Aristotle Belongs to neither category, as he took no stance on determinism. But he avoided most of the traps into which the Stoics & Epicureans were to fall. Thus he held a more defensible stance about voluntariness, choice & character.

16. 16 References 1. Anthony Gottlieb, The Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance (London: Penguin, 2001), p. 318.