In the eyes of Aristotle, an incontinent man is dictated by his lack of rational behavior—one who “acts with appetite, but not with choice” (Section 2, Paragraph 3). People of this manner are driven solely through desire and emotion, though their actions remain voluntary. Aristotle addresses that choices should be the product of deliberation and rational thought. An incontinent person lacks these said components, consciously succumbing to their non-rational desires. Furthermore, choice and appetite are separate aspects since the latter involves acting upon “pain and pleasure”, while the former depends on neither (Section 2, Paragraph 3). 

Aristotle asserts that our actions originate within ourselves, since we intentionally decided to act that certain way. In that sense, a person is aware of whether his or her actions are right or wrong once they have committed to doing that certain action. For some people, they consciously choose to become self-indulgent or careless, acting incontinently. Even individuals who deem to be ignorant must be held accountable for their actions, since it’s also within their control to further educate themselves. With all that in mind, we always have a choice—the only exception is if the action is against our own will. Since the “moving principle” is within ourselves, we are always given the choice to do or not. 

I side with Aristotle’s perspective, since we are our own person, with the power to act accordingly to our character. Though I may have one exception, specifically forgiving ignorant people for their actions, mainly because I feel like it’s circumstantial. For instance, if an individual were to have been raised in a family which promoted closed minded values. The person may believe it’s rational since it’s what he or she has been exposed to. Children are especially more prone to accepting whatever beliefs their parents have taught them, good or bad. But once these children have matured, and have been exposed to more knowledge, then should they be held accountable.

(324 words)