David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy 86 (04):503-524 (2011)
H. A. Prichard ascribed to Aristotle a form of closeted hedonism. Aristotle allegedly misunderstood his own task: while his avowed goal in Nicomachean Ethics is to give an account of the nature of happiness, his real goal must be to offer an account of the factors most efficiently generating happiness. The reason is that the nature of happiness is enjoyment, and this fact is supposed to have been recognised by Aristotle and his audience. While later writers judged Prichard's view obviously mistaken, I argue that the issue is more complex. In the process of reconstructing the logical skeleton of Prichard's argument I show that Aristotle may have had to endorse the identification of the subject's good with that subject's psychological satisfaction. But I also argue that, while making prior assumptions about the meaning of `eudaimonia', Aristotle made no such assumptions about the nature of eudaimonia
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Rudolf Carnap (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago]University of Chicago Press.
Tyler Burge (2007). Foundations of Mind. Oxford University Press.
Michael Friedman (1974). Explanation and Scientific Understanding. Journal of Philosophy 71 (1):5-19.
Sarah Broadie (1991). Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford University Press.
Peter K. Unger (1990). Identity, Consciousness, and Value. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Sandy Berkovski (2012). The Possibility of Modified Hedonism. Theoria 78 (3):186-212.
Similar books and articles
Neville Richardson (1986). Apartheid, Heresy and the Church in South Africa. Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1):1 - 21.
H. A. Prichard (2002). Moral Writings. Oxford University Press.
R. N. Swanson (2008). Heresy in Transition: Transforming Ideas of Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Edited by Ian Hunter, John Christian Laursen, and Cary J. Nederman. Heythrop Journal 49 (6):1076-1077.
Douglas Lewis (1970). Some Problems of Perceptions. Philosophy of Science 37 (March):100-113.
Thomas Hurka (2010). Underivative Duty: Prichard on Moral Obligation. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):111-134.
Elinor Mason (2003). Consequentialism and the "Ought Implies Can" Principle. American Philosophical Quarterly 40 (4):319-331.
D. J. B. Hawkins (1951). The Ethics of H. A. Prichard. Philosophical Quarterly 1 (3):242-247.
H. A. Prichard (1944). H. W. B. Joseph, 1867-1943. Mind 53 (210):189-191.
G. F. Stout (1907). Mr. Prichard's Criticism of Psychology. Mind 16 (62):236-243.
E. F. Carritt (1948). Professor H. A. Prichard. Personal Recollections. Mind 57 (226):146-148.
H. A. Prichard (1906). Appearances and Reality.--I. Mind 15 (58):223-229.
H. A. Prichard (1912). Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake? Mind 21 (81):21-37.
H. A. Prichard (1928). Mr. Bertrand Russell's Outline of Philosophy. Mind 37 (147):265-282.
H. A. Prichard (1910). Philosophic Pre-Copernicanism-an Answer. Mind 19 (76):541-543.
Added to index2011-09-24
Total downloads15 ( #171,478 of 1,724,752 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #167,193 of 1,724,752 )
How can I increase my downloads?