This is a study of Aristotle's moral philosophy as it is contained in the Nicomachean Ethics. Hardie examines the difficulties of the text; presents a map of inescapable philosophical questions; and brings out the ambiguities and critical disagreements on some central topics, inclduing happiness, the soul, the ethical mean, and the initiation of action.

It is a common complaint against moral philosophers that their abstract theorising bears little relation to the practical problems of everyday life. Professor Braithwaite believes that this criticism need not be inevitable. With the help of the Theory of Games he shows how arbitration is possible between two neighbours, a jazz trumpeter and a classical pianist, whose performances are a source of mutual discord. The solution of the problem in the lecture is geometrical, and is based on the formal analogy (...) between the logic of the situation and the geometry of a parabola. But an appendix provides the alternative algebraic treatment of a general two-person collaboration situation. (shrink)

An old Arab proverb runs as follows: He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool; shun him. He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child; teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep; wake him. But he who knows, and knows that he knows, is a sage; follow him.

This book argues for a radically different approach to traditional and important problems of moral philoosphy. The book discusses three theses; the diversity of moralities and moral judgements, their normativesness, and their possible rationality.

It is a surprising fact that moral philosophers have rarely examined the distinction between what I shall call ‘positive’ or ‘social’ morality on the one hand and ‘autonomous’ or ‘individual’ morality on the other. Accordingly, conceptual and moral issues of the greatest importance have been neglected. The distinction is, I take it, recognised by Hegel, when he contrasts Sittlichkeit with Moralität . However, the rival sides who give a conceptual or a moral preference to one concept over the other rarely (...) come to grips with one another, and the deep conflicts between them are concealed instead of being brought out into the open. Only in Burke's diatribe against Rousseau, Bradley's critique of Sidgwick , Hobhouse's crusade against Bosanquet , Prichard's attack on Green , Hart's criticism of Hare , and above all in Oakeshott's onslaught on Rationalism do we get a glimpse of one of the main issues of moral philosophy and of morality. For just as we have two concepts, so we have two moral conceptual schemes, each of which gives a central place to one concept at the expense of the other. Those who suppose that morality is or ought to be wholly or mainly a social concept may recommend submission to a tradition. Those, on the other hand, who suppose morality to be primarily an individual or independent concept will recommend independent decisions. I want in this paper, firstly, to explain the differences between the two concepts, secondly, to show that neither of them is conceptually illegitimate or degenerate, and lastly, to determine what place, if any, each ought to have in a rational morality. (shrink)

Abstract The paper is concerned with the status of vague predicates. It is argued that they are for the most part ?classifiers?, which are covertly comparatives and name not monadic properties but relations. The Sorites Paradox, it is claimed, is thus defused and a verdict theory of vague predicates is presented. Our practice in using vague words is described and it is contended that in our use of these predicates we always have a permanent possibility of independent demarcation. Wittgenstein's picture (...) of the wall and the swamp is deployed to avoid the Transition Problem and it is argued against Fregeans that we need vague language for the advancement of knowledge and understanding. (shrink)

My principal aims are to question the conventional wisdom on two points. First, it argues that cognitive understanding is neither identical with nor reducible to knowledge?why, and that it is a multiform capacity which adds value to knowledge, true belief, and human creative activity. Essential to understanding is epistemic ascent, the rising above bare knowledge, to assess, appraise, compare, contrast, emphasize, connect and so on. Different modes of understanding are distinguished and an accompanying vocabulary of mode?indicators (expressing Fregean ?colour'). Second, (...) I argue for the unity and continuity of understanding and reject any Diltheyesque idea of a great divide between so?called ?explanation? and ?understanding?, a divide which has sometimes been used to make a sharp demarcation between the natural sciences and the humane studies and sciences. A connection between humane and natural?scientific understanding is established through the Linkage Principle. The idea that there is in every case a uniquely right understanding is rejected and the role of multiple descriptions in both the natural sciences and humane understanding is emphasized. (shrink)

Plato in his discussion of the Divided Line introduces a distinction between knowledge of the Forms in and by themselves () and . The first distinguishing characteristic of is that it ‘is compelled to employ assumptions, while knowledge of the Forms tries to advance to a certain first principle’ . The second distinguishing characteristic of is that it employs the ordinary objects of sense-perception as images . The geometer, in order to find out about ‘the Square’ and ‘the Diagonal’, draws (...) diagrams and makes models. (shrink)

Contemporary logicians sometimes discuss questions like ‘What criterion is there for deciding whether a portion of language or a theory is committed to the existence of anything?’, ‘Does mathematics require us to countenance or tolerate abstract entities?’. In the course of these discussions ancient problems about universals reappear in a new dress. Quine, for one, would agree that it is not by our use of general terms that we commit ourselves to the existence of anything, for general terms like ‘red’ (...) and ‘five’ are not names. Nor does the use of names commit one to corresponding entities, for we sometimes use a name non–designatively. “Names,” as Quine says, “are in fact altogether immaterial to the onto–logical issue.” Quine argues that there is only one way in which we can find out what entities a theory commits us to. Given that the theory is expressed in the symbolism of quantification theory, we discover what entities the theory is committed to by examining what entities have to be values of our bound variables if the statements made in the theory are to be true. “To be is purely and simply to be the value of a variable”. I want to argue in this paper that Quine’s criterion of ontological commitment cannot distinguish genuine from bogus ontological commitment and is therefore inadequate. (shrink)

The division between “erklaren” and “verstehen” is not as sharp as the conventional wisdom maintains, for all understanding, including the understanding of people, consists in the connecting, ordering and appraising of things encountered, believed or known. The understanding of people is a distinctive kind of cognitive understanding which has a practical side, involving the emotions. The education of the emotions, needed for us to understand ourselves and others, can be achieved both by the observation of real life and importantly by (...) the study of realistic fiction and of biography. (shrink)

Time was when a sage could win a reputation by uttering or writing wise saws, pithy apophthegms and aphorisms. But what is an aphorism and does it have a place in philosophical thinking?

The aim of a theory of justice appears to be to find an explanation of our intuitive judgments in this area, an explanation which is capable of yielding, at any rate eventually, answers to particular questions of social policy. The difficulty of constructing such a theory is due partly to the many elements in the concept of justice. To assert that there is more than one concept of justice would be to take the easy way out; to say that there (...) is only one simple concept, as Robert Nozick appears to do is to narrow to an unwarranted extent the application of the concept.Any adequate concept of justice must include amongst its ingredients fairness, entitlement or right, desert, need, reciprocity and the relative paramountcy of the concept. Nozick's historical-entitlement theory explains both the connection of justice with entitlement and the relative paramountcy of the concept. But it does not show, as it should, the connection of entitlement with the other elements in the concept of justice. (shrink)

Neil Cooper; V*—Moral Nihilism, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 74, Issue 1, 1 June 1974, Pages 75–90, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/74.1.