We Need a Volunteer

A person is wicked when he is ignorant of what ought to have been done and also what ought not to have been done. Acts that are done by commission or omission are what we focus on in general and call bad or unjust. They have to be justified in a person’s head somehow. But how do we tell the difference between acts that are voluntary and those that are involuntary? If the person was expecting a reward, it is usually considered voluntary. If a person claims ignorance for what is obvious to any normal person, we would still lean toward considering it a voluntary act.  Rather than depending on generalities, we have to be specific to determine if an action deserves pity or pardon since the person might not grasp that certain actions are causing a problem. There are details that everyone is ignorant of and so finding these out is critical so the acts can be dealt with properly.

Concerning these particulars, we will do well to study and find out what they are all about: There are numerous areas a person may be ignorant; his identity, actions, who is affected, how they are affected, what the tool he is using is capable of, the intensity of application. For a person not to know any of these things he would have to be crazy. Of course a person knows his identity and knows what he is doing, but the effect isn't always known. A person might unknowingly hurt someone through words and deeds. A slip of the tongue, improper use of equipment, or unintentional results can all be interpreted as a wicked act from the onset but on closer examination found to be committed by mistake only. A boxer might hit too hard during sparring. But this kind of mistake will make the person feel bad and apologize.

We also give a person a break who was forced to do something against his will or wasn't aware of the ramifications. Voluntary acts originate with the doer when he is aware of the particulars. What about acts done by anger or appetite? We presume that these things are controllable. Although children and even animals are driven more by them, we expect them to use temperance. If an act is worthy of honor by forgoing appetite and anger we give honor to it. That means dishonorable behavior has its ramifications. So there has to be a voluntary element to appetites. Also there are certain things we should eat and certain things we should be angry about. That means we aren't helpless with these. The things that are involuntary are things that cause us sorrow and appetites fulfill desires. There is little difference between a mistake made in anger and one committed by negligence. We want to avoid both. The irrational passions that rise up in us are as human as the rational part that influences our decision making process to cause action. So it wouldn't make sense to treat them as involuntary. The subject of voluntary and involuntary actions must need more clarity. This leads us to the subject of choice. Believe it or not, choice and voluntary actions are not the same thing. How are they different? Next time…