A methodological statement that occurs at Nicomachean Ethics vii 1 and its implementation in the subsequent discussion has widely been called ‘the method of endoxa’. According to the received interpretation, this method follows some strict steps and epitomizes the dialectical method of inquiry. I question the received interpretation and argue for a deflationary and non-dialectical account which, I believe, conforms with Aristotle’s scientifically oriented general methodology.

A continuous objection to virtue ethics has been its alleged inadequacy in providing a distinctive account of right action and determinate action guidance. The virtue ethical criterion “An action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically (i.e., acting in character) do in the circumstances,” has been claimed by some to give wrong results in some cases, and thus doomed to failure. However, I argue that the opponents who raise these objections overlook an important (...) distinction between “action assessment” and “action guidance” in virtue ethics. Once this distinction which is alien to other dominant moral theories is taken into consideration, I show that virtue ethics can supply a distinctive theory of right action and sufficient action guidance. Moreover, I will demonstrate that this distinction allows us to see that virtue ethics has some structural advantages that enable it to provide multiple guidance strategies to different agents with differential cognitive and moral developmental levels. Finally, I will argue that while theories that tell moral agents what to do by providing exact answers might affect moral agency in negative ways by frustrating the development of an integrated moral character, virtue ethics also avoids this effect. (shrink)

The interpretation of human nature attributed by Aristotle to the natural slave remains a contentious issue. I challenge two prevalent interpretative approaches that fail to represent Aristotle’s view accurately. The first interpretation suggests that natural slaves share the same human nature as free men, with their deficiencies arising from their actions and habituation. The second view considers the natural slave as a degenerate subhuman with an innate and irremediable rational deformity. I reject both interpretations and propose instead that the natural (...) slave is seen as a legitimate human being with a rational deficiency. Furthermore, I argue that although slaves are considered human beings, their rational deficiency should be understood as more severe than some scholars suggest. This is particularly true for those who equate non-Greeks with natural slaves and evaluate the cognitive capabilities of slaves based on the intellectual achievements of non-Greeks. (shrink)

In this book, Julie K. Ward examines the concept of theoria within both philosophical and what she terms ‘traditional’ frameworks. Her primary objective is to enhance the ongoing philosophical discussion surrounding Plato and Aristotle’s accounts of theoria by situating them within the context of the earlier practice of traditional theoria. By understanding the cultural ground from which these philosophical accounts spring, Ward rightly asserts that her work enables a deeper and more sustained critical analysis of both philosophers’ theories than what (...) is found in current scholarship. (shrink)