Aristotle: Ethics

Different understanding on Aristotelian distributive justice results in two main factions: holism and egalitarianism. Dennis McKerlie, one of the representatives of holism, criticized Martha Nussbaum's interpretation as an egalitarian. McKerlie argued that Nussbaum did not attach enough importance to the Proportional equality and Aristotelian Common good, as well as a deviation in the understanding of the concept of distribution. The defense of egalitarianism is that Aristotle's emphasis on the rational equality of citizens and the ontological presupposition of primal equality show (...) Aristotelian egalitarian tendencies. (shrink)

English title: Gadamer's interpretation of the Aristotelian Protrepticus. -/- Abstract: The aim of this paper is to present and analyse the main hypotheses of Hans-Georg Gadamer in his 1928 essay Der aristotelische Protreptikos und die entwicklungsgeschichtliche Betrachtung der aristotelischen Ethik, emphasizing the Gadamerian reception of the notions of phrónēsis, hēdonḗ and, to a lesser extent, phýsis. It will be attempted to show that in this early work of Gadamer there is more than a methodological and interpretative debate regarding the Protrepticus (...) and the Aristotelian ethics. Lastly, the paper argues that it is possible to read in the main arguments of this early essay the first intellectual maturation of relevance of Gadamer, expressed in the form of a critical dialogue with his great masters (Paul Natorp, Nicolai Hartmann, Martin Heidegger, Paul Friedländer), departing from the new interpretative possibilities that philology and phenomenology opened to his studies on the ethical-political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. The theoretical consequences of this early article would have both paved the way of Gadamer’s next theoretical interventions regarding Platonic political philosophy as well as for the future developments of philosophical hermeneutics. /// -/- Resumen: El objetivo de este artículo es presentar y analizar las principales hipótesis de Hans-Georg Gadamer en su ensayo de 1928 Der aristotelische Protreptikos und die entwicklungsgeschichtliche Betrachtung der aristotelischen Ethik, poniendo énfasis en la recuperación gadameriana de las nociones de phrónēsis, hēdonḗ y, en menor medida, phýsis. Se intenta demostrar que en este trabajo temprano de Gadamer hay, en términos metodológicos e interpretativos, más que una discusión con Werner Jaeger con relación al Protréptico y a la ética aristotélica. Finalmente, este artículo sostiene que es posible leer en las principales argumentaciones del ensayo la primera maduración intelectual de relevancia de Gadamer, expresada en forma de diálogo crítico con sus grandes maestros (Paul Natorp, Nicolai Hartmann, Martin Heidegger, Paul Friedländer), a partir de las nuevas posibilidades interpretativas que la filología y fenomenología le abrieron para el estudio de la filosofía ético-política de Platón y Aristóteles. Las consecuencias teóricas de este temprano artículo habrían signado tanto el camino de sus siguientes intervenciones teóricas en tono a la filosofía política platónica como también los futuros desarrollos de la hermenéutica filosófica. (shrink)

Discussione a partire dal libro di Giorgio Agamben "Karman. Breve trattato sull'azione, la colpa e il gesto", Bollati Boringhieri, 2017.

Sometimes, in the Nicomachean Ethics (NE), Aristotle describes virtuous actions as the sorts of actions that are ends; it is important for Aristotle to do so if he wants to maintain, as he seems to at least until NE 10.7-8, that virtuous actions are a constituent of eudaimonia. At other times, he claims that virtuous actions are the sorts of actions that are for the sake of ends beyond themselves; after all, no one would choose to go into battle or (...) give away a significant portion of their wealth if it did not realize some good end. In this paper, I review the familiar problem raised by Aristotle's discussion of the nature of virtuous actions, propose a solution to this problem by appealing to a distinction between virtuous actions and 'acting virtuously', and sketch the significance of this solution for understanding the relationship between virtue and human happiness. (shrink)

The dominant Greek and Roman ideology held that the best human life required engaging in politics, on the grounds that the human good is shared, not private, and that the activities central to this shared good are those of traditional politics. This chapter surveys three ways in which philosophers challenged this ideology, defended a withdrawal from or transformation of traditional politics, and thus rethought what politics could be. Plato and Aristotle accept the ideology's two central commitments but insist that a (...) few exceptional human beings could transcend the good of human activities. Epicurus argues that the human good is private, not shared. Socrates and some of his followers, including especially the Stoics, argue that the activities central to the shared human good are not those of traditional politics. (shrink)

Many contemporary discussions of forgiveness assume forgiveness is fundamentally admirable. Examining Aristotle’s account, however, demonstrates that there is a tension between desert and forgiveness that is often overlooked in contemporary discussions. Through examining the neglected concept of sungnōmē, which forestalls blame, I conclude that Aristotelian blame is justified only on grounds of fairness. This conclusion is evidence that Aristotelian blame is not merely an instrumental or descriptive tool, but rather a way of holding agents morally accountable. Through examining the emphasis (...) Aristotle places on the role of blame and its role in maintaining honor, I show that forgiveness is incompatible with Aristotle’s account because when the victim decides to forgive, she lets go of blame on grounds other than desert. For Aristotle, when she does so, she accepts less than she is worth, and so forgiving a wrongdoer undermines the victim’s honor. As a result, Aristotle rejects forgiveness as positively vicious. Aristotle’s response to the tension is to reject forgiveness as positively vicious since it involves accepting less than what one deserves. -/- In my dissertation, I resolve this impasse by both defending the value of forgiveness and seeking to resolve the tension by explaining why we can choose to forgive without undermining our own honor. Contra Aristotle, I argue that cultivating the disposition to be forgiving is part of flourishing individual and communal life. The choice to let go what of one deserves, however, need not mean that honor is relinquished. Instead, I defend an alternative account of honor in which honor lies not in demanding what is deserved but instead in committing to the consistent pursuit of the good. On this account, honor is related to the ongoing commitment to a coherent and compelling identity rooted in seeing ethical values as central to the conception of one’s self, rather than outwardly-mediated Aristotelian honor. Honor is thus bound up in commitment to the good life generally, and does not rely on getting what one deserves. My account thus reconciles Aristotelian blame with forgiveness, demonstrates what is valuable about honor, and why it is still worth pursuing in our modern world. (shrink)

This paper focuses on Aristotelian phronesis and aims at highlighting its nature as an eye on particulars with general ends in sight. More specifically, it challenges the particularistic interpretation of phronesis and Aristotelian ethics in order to argue for a “qualified generalism.” After sketching a radical Particularistic Reading (PR), the paper defends an interpretation it calls the Priority of Particulars Reading (PPR). First, it shows how PPR effectively accounts for the Aristotelian priority assigned to practical perception while at the same (...) time counterbalancing that priority by means of two interpretive strategies. Then it offers further support to PPR by appealing to its own reading of Aristotle's phronesis. It aims to show that it is possible to defend a legitimate form of PPR without ending in holding PR, and that Aristotle's own theory and work ground the moderate reading. Finally, it draws some implications by analyzing educational practice. (shrink)

Friendship (philia) plays a prominent role in Aristotle’s ethical thought. It is only within the context of his discussions of philia that Aristotle explicitly mentions acting for the sake of another’s good: friends, he claims, wish and do good things for one another for the sake of the friend. However, it is not clear whether Aristotle limits disinterested wishing well to the complete friendships of virtuous agents. I argue that he does not; friends of all varieties, to the extent that (...) they are friends at all, wish and act well for the friend’s sake. I also consider whether Aristotle’s remarks on self-love and friendship might provide reason for thinking that love for others is and ought to be an extension of self-love. I reject the idea that love for a friend is justified by self-love: the virtuous agent does not care about the good of her friends only insofar as she sees those friends as her other selves. (shrink)

Many scholars have suggested that Aristotle’s famous aphorism ‘treat equals equally, unequals unequally’ is a formal, and thus impractical, theory of equality. This dissertation aims to criticise the popular view that Aristotle’s theory of equality is purely formal and to develop and defend an interpretation which will pay attention to the substantive elements. The first chapter argues that Aristotle provides us with a spectrum from formal to substantive equality. At the formal end, we have the abstract principles of formal fairness (...) and proportionality, while at the substantive end we can find information for the designation of the appropriate variable of comparison between people or treatments in various domains of social interaction. The second chapter argues for an account of commensurability based on Ph. VII.4. I claim that, in any comparison, the term ‘equal’ should be predicated synonymously of the people or treatment compared, while at the same time they should not admit to difference in species; such an account, I suggest, is also compatible with Aristotle’s theory of economic value in EN V.5. The third chapter presents the Aristotelian account of equality in distributions. I focus on Aristotle’s theory of political distribution in Pol. III, where he puts forward two distinct criteria: political capacity and contribution to the polis. I also examine Aristotle’s moderate suggestion for equalisation of property by the means of public property and taxation. The fourth chapter criticises the popular line that Aristotle holds an inconsistent theory of corrective justice, because in EN V.4 he suggests that people should be treated as equal before the law, while in the first lines of EN V.5 he allows for hierarchical considerations. I eliminate this apparent inconsistency by claiming that the former deals with the compensatory, while the latter with the punitive element of corrective justice. The fifth chapter explores the role of equality within the private domain, mainly in the household and in various types of friendship. I propose that Aristotle offers two types of superiority, one based on actuality and a second based on function, which are not mutually exclusive. To summarise, by examining Aristotle’s responses to various problems about equality and hierarchy I conclude that although he possesses the theoretical tools to argue for ‘inalienable’ metaphysical equality of human beings which will make equality an individual entitlement or right, based on his principle of individuation in Metaph. Z.8, he prefers not to utilise this thesis for political purposes. Instead, he reduces equality to justice (inequality is unjust, since it violates principle of formal fairness which is fundamental for justice) and a set of pragmatical considerations (e.g. concord and the optimal outcome for the polis). He prefers to argue that equality or hierarchy of people or treatments is related to, and defined by, the particular institution that we examine. (shrink)

How to become morally virtuous? Among the students of Aristotle, it is often assumed that the philosopher does not have a fully worked-out theoretical answer to this question. Some interpreters have, however, recognised that Aristotle may have a comprehensive theory of moral development. However, even those interpreters have made only scarce attempts to study Aristotle’s theory in connection with the questions about his moral psychology. Unlike Aristotle’s theory of moral development as such, several of those questions are among the most (...) debated issues in current Aristotle scholarship - for example, whether we need reason to identify good actions or whether habituated non-rational affects suffice; what makes us responsible for our actions, and how the philosopher conceives the relationship between phronesis and moral motivation. In my thesis, I aim at connecting these important questions with Aristotle’s theory of moral development. I hope to show that this approach will yield a picture on which Aristotle’s theory is divisible into two steps that one has to choose to take in order to become morally virtuous. I argue first that identifying good ends, and actions, requires reason. In order to become morally responsible, a person has thus to develop a rational ability to identify good actions. I show that Aristotle’s term for such ability is synesis. The first step to virtue, I conclude, is to use this ability well, to choose to become virtuous and habituate one’s character into acting well. The second step is to acquire phronesis, understanding why good actions are good, to complement a habituated character. Developing of phronesis requires both considerable experience in acting well and philosophical teaching about ethics, but it is necessary for moral virtue. Although a finely-habituated person is invulnerable to akrasia with regard to pleasures even if he did not have phronesis, Aristotle allows, I show, that he might still be prone to impetuous akrasia, whereas phronimos could avoid akratic behaviour in any situation. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 1 - 25 This paper aims to articulate Aristotle’s general account of vice, an account that applies to all special vices, regardless of their spheres of action and emotion, and whether they are states of excess or deficiency. Vice is ignorance in the decision : the paper explains what this means.

Originally published in 1940, this book contains an expanded English translation of Books 8 and 9 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. These two books are devoted to a discussion on the nature of friendship and the role it played in Greek life, and Percival supplies an introduction with a background to the subject of ancient friendship prior to Aristotle's formulation. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in ancient friendship or the philosophy of Aristotle.

This book offers a comprehensive account of the major philosophical works on friendship and its relationship to self-love. The book gives central place to Aristotle's searching examination of friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics. Lorraine Pangle argues that the difficulties surrounding this discussion are soon dispelled once one understands the purpose of the Ethics as both a source of practical guidance for life and a profound, theoretical investigation into human nature. The book also provides fresh interpretations of works on friendship by (...) Plato, Cicero, Epicurus, Seneca, Montaigne and Bacon. The author shows how each of these thinkers sheds light on central questions of moral philosophy: is human sociability rooted in neediness or strength? is the best life chiefly solitary, or dedicated to a community with others? Clearly structured and engagingly written, this book will appeal to a broad swathe of readers across philosophy, classics and political science. (shrink)

According to many scholars, Aristotle holds that judgments in ethics can hold true only “for the most part”. Such judgments state general claims about ethical life, not specific claims about how to act in a particular situation. These judgments can be either descriptive or prescriptive. When they are descriptive, they hold true “for the most part” insofar as they express observed regularities that occur neither always and necessarily, nor by mere chance. For example, courage is good “for the most part,” (...) except when it causes injury or death ; brave men are fearless “for the most part,” except when in grave danger. When.. (shrink)

The first sentence of NE I.2 has roughly the form: "If A [there is a universal end] and B, then D [this end will be the best good]". According to some commentators, Aristotle uses B to infer A; but then the sentence is fallacious. According to other commentators, Aristotle does not use B ; but then the sentence is bizarre. Contrary to both sets of commentators, I suggest that Aristotle uses B together with A to infer validly that there is (...) a non-instrumental – and thus unique – universal end. On this interpretation the above two problems disappear, but a subtler problem emerges: not-B does not entail C. (shrink)

In “Doing Without Morality” Richard Kraut argues that Aristotle does not work with moral concepts such as moral rightness and duty. One of his arguments is that Aristotle treats wit as a virtue of character but not a moral virtue in Nicomachean Ethics IV.8 and that this treatment should be extended to all the virtues of character. Though sympathetic to his conclusion, I offer three reasons for thinking that wit is ill-suited to play the role in which Kraut casts it: (...) first, what Aristotle says about wit elsewhere in the NE calls its status as a character virtue into question; second, the taxonomy of virtue and vice implicit in NE IV suggests that wit is not a full-fledged character virtue; and third, in Eudemian Ethics III.7 Aristotle holds that wit is not a virtue of character. Along the way I discuss some intriguing complexities in Aristotle’s taxonomy of virtues and vices and suggest that Aristotle has the resources to make a principled distinction between personality and character traits. (shrink)

In Books VIII and IX of his masterpiece of moral philosophy, the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives perhaps the most famous of all philosophical discussions of friendship. Michael Pakaluk presents the first systematic study in English of these books, showing how important Aristotle's treatment of friendship is to his ethics as a whole. Pakaluk's fresh and scrupulously accurate translation is accompanied by a detailed philosophical commentary which reveals the remarkably coherent structure of the books and unfolds with lucidity the various arguments (...) contained within Aristotle's terse and compressed text. Pakaluk looks at the logical form of Aristotle's analysis of friendship, at his subtle view of the relationship between friendship and justice, at the role of reciprocity in friendship, at civic friendship and its relation to the family, and at the development of friendship out of self-love and reflexive consciousness. This volume will be a valuable tool for anyone studying Aristotle's ethics, especially readers with no Greek. (shrink)

In Nicomachean Ethics X.7–8, Aristotle defends a striking view about the good for human beings. According to Aristotle, the single happiest way of life is organized around philosophical contemplation. According to the narrowness worry, however, Aristotle's contemplative ideal is unduly Procrustean, restrictive, inflexible, and oblivious of human diversity. In this paper, I argue that Aristotle has resources for responding to the narrowness worry, and that his contemplative ideal can take due account of human diversity.

This paper takes as its starting point the argument from Eudemian Ethics II,1 which introduces as premisses conclusions from the previous chapters, namely, the chief good of human beings is an end and everybody judges speculative wisdom, moral virtue and pleasure to be ends, either all or some of them. These two claims allow Aristotle to conclude that the most desirable of all goods is in the soul and to proceed arguing to his main conclusion in terms of the ergon, (...) function or characteristic activity, of the soul. It should be noticed, though, that if the ergon of the human soul can explain speculative wisdom and moral virtues to be ends, the same is not so easily defensible in the case of pleasure. In fact, to take pleasure as end seems to take a subjective satisfaction with no matter what as end. Now, the ergon of the soul cannot explain pleasure as an end in this unrestricted way. To solve this difficulty, this paper seeks to interpret a prior passage, I, 5, 1215b15-1216a10, as responsible for restricting the range of pleasures that can be counted as finalities to human beings. (shrink)

This dissertation takes issue with John Finnis' account of negative moral absolutes, which he claims guarantees human flourishing by specifying the minimal requirements of rationality for any and all situations regardless of circumstances or consequences. I contend that these absolutes derive from a deficient conception of practical reason and attempt to place them within that context. I then show that Finnis' account fails on its own terms, for despite the fact that he insists that his account of the relationship between (...) moral absolutes and practical reason can supply all rational people with a minimum standard of human flourishing independent of an appeal to faith, he must advert to faith in order to supply an adequate motive to act in accord with his absolutes. ;I turn to Aristotle in order to give an alternative account of practical reason. In my treatment of the Nicomachean Ethics, I concentrate on the dialectical structure and practical intent of his philosophy of human affairs in order to show that Aristotle's treatment of phronesis cannot be separated from the overall context in which this treatment arises. I then turn to the Politics, where I try to emphasize the essentially practical nature of phronesis according to Aristotle. I conclude by offering an argument as to why Aristotle's account can answer the problems that Finnis' could not. In particular, Aristotle's ancient account of practical reason does not have the motive problem associated with Finnis' modern account, for Aristotle's ontological ethics drives no wedge between egoism and benevolence. ;The method I follow throughout imitates the Aristotelian dialectic which I outline in Part Two. Philosophical inquiry for Aristotle is the critical examination of accounts to see where and why these break down and using this failure as an opportunity for further inquiry. (shrink)

In this study I take the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics as inseparable parts of a single subject matter. I do this for heuristic purposes in order to analyze the place Aristotle assigns to friendship in political life. Aristotle speaks of friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics as he speaks of citizenship in the Politics, and I attempt to show that there is a dynamic and reciprocal relationship between friendship and citizenship so that the one cannot be understood without reference to (...) the other. In order to accomplish this task I have made this study in two parts. First, I analyze Aristotle's theoretical framework within which friendship emerges as a specific human desire that when properly understood and promoted constitutes the basis of a healthy political community. Secondly, I have examined the various correct constitutions and their deviant forms in order to explore in detail their functional character in directing or misdirecting, as the case may be, human passions and the fruition of friendships. ;Aristotle views friendship not as a loose concept that is open to any interpretation stating alternatives of equal value, but a specific human desire the fulfillment of which is a condition of a healthy political life. The general conclusion of this study is that Aristotle has an organic approach to eudaimonia and political health, and together these are determinants of cultural adequacy, i.e. they test the institutions to ascertain their ability to enhance the conditions for noble friendship. Any break in the organic pattern of the factors that relate to noble friendship is a rupture and can cause loss of value, or deterioration of political health. (shrink)

It is commonly believed that Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics argues for a "dominant end" intellectualist theory of the human good. This theory specifies contemplative activity as the sole element in the best life for man, and it implies that all other goods, including moral and political activities, have value only as means to contemplative activity. It is conceded that Aristotle sometimes appears to regard the highest good as an "inclusive end," an end composed of several independently valued things, but this is (...) typically regarded as an inconsistency. It is claimed that ultimately, the Stragirite identifies the human good with contemplation alone, and thus finds no salient value in altruism or any genuinely moral behavior. ;This dissertation challenges the idea that the Nicomachean Ethics advances an intellectualist theory of the human good. It argues that Aristotle consistently presents an inclusive end view which not only accommodates, but emphasizes, the intrinsic worth of social and moral activities. And it argues that Aristotle's eudaimon--the man who has realized the good life--possesses and exercises all of the distinctively human virtues, not merely those of the theoretical intellect. ;Chapter I begins the argument for this interpretation with an analysis of Aristotle's metaethics. In chapter II, we examine the arguments of NE I. 1-7 which purport to show that the human good is eudaimonia . We also challenge the widely held views that at NE I.2 Aristotle advances a fallacious argument for the existence of one supreme end of human action and he espouses the doctrine of Psychological Eudaimonism, the view that every human action is undertaken, ultimately, for the sake of the acting agent's happiness. Chapter III begins with a discussion of the meaning of eudaimonia. The greater part of the chapter, however, is a detailed analysis of the so-called "function argument" at NE I.7. The fourth final chapter is devoted to an intensive examination of the discussion of contemplation presented in NE X. 6-8. We maintain that the evidence strongly suggests that Aristotle consistently argues for an inclusive end conception of the good throughout the Nicomachean Ethics. (shrink)

It has been widely assumed in the history of philosophy that the moral theories of Aristotle and Kant are so different that there simply is no common ground on which to compare them. This dissertation seeks to dispel that assumption and prepare the ground for dialogue between Aristotle and Kant. The thesis of this investigation is that if an analysis of each theory is conducted independently, and if that analysis is delineated specifically in terms of practical reason and virtue, then (...) it can be demonstrated that both Aristotle and Kant share a common interest in the primary question of practical reason. Thus it will be argued that both Aristotle and Kant are fundamentally interested in "How ought one live his life as a whole?" Given the latter, it is further claimed that their theories are of a similar shape, , that both possess a conception of practical reason that is unified but not monistic, and that their respective conceptions of what it is to be a virtuous person are more similar than dissimilar. While the above similarities hold at a general level, it is argued that when the details of their theories of moral education are examined, sharp contrasts emerge. ;Although this analysis is both historical and comparative, it treats each theory independently in order to avoid begging the question as to whether they are comparable in the first place. Hence it is not assumed that their respective notions of virtue and practical reason are identical. Points of convergence or divergence must emerge from the texts themselves. Thus historical analysis in this context does not refer to tracking a line of influence between Aristotle and Kant. Rather, historical analysis in this investigation simply refers to getting each theory correct in terms of each philosopher's texts. (shrink)

At the end of Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle establishes a direct relation between εύδαιµονία and the activity of theoretical contemplation. According to Thomas Nagel, that situation originates two interpretative perspectives of εὐδαιμονία: a comprehensive account and an intellectualist one. The last one determines εύδαιµονία as the activity of the most divine part of man as a result of theoretical contemplation. On the other hand, the comprehensive account involves the full range of human life and action. This paper argues in favor with (...) the importance of considering εύδαιµονία as a result of an ethical, political, economical and sociological viewpoint throughout Nicomachean Ethics. While this essay recognizes elements to support the intellectualist perspective, it considers if we defend it, an interpretation where Aristotle's practical reason turns to the metaphysical position in Plato's ethics will follows as a consequence. (shrink)